ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Primary Schools: Sport

Rehman Chishti: What plans he has to encourage sport in primary schools.

Stephen McPartland: What plans he has to encourage sport in primary schools.

Edward Timpson: Making physical activity integral to every child’s life from an early age is the key to an enduring, active and healthy lifestyle. That is why the Prime Minister announced cross-Government funding of £150 million each year for 2013-14 and 2014-15, to go to every state-funded primary school. This must be spent on improving the provision of physical education and sport. Ofsted will review schools’ use of this funding, and PE will remain compulsory in the national curriculum at all four key stages.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he join me in welcoming the benefits of the FA Tesco skills programme for primary school pupils, which aims to coach 4.7 million children by 2014?

Edward Timpson: I am happy to welcome the benefits of the FA Tesco Skills programme, and to congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment as the FA’s parliamentary fellow. I can see huge benefits in sponsors such as Tesco and other well-known supermarkets working closely with national governing bodies to improve children’s access to high-quality coaching in different sports, which Lord Coe believes is an important aspect of our strategy going forward.

Stephen McPartland: Sport and healthy eating are vital in tackling childhood obesity. How does the Minister plan to encourage more primary schools to spend more time teaching those skills in a busy curriculum?

Edward Timpson: With a third of children leaving primary school with a problem with their weight, that is a concern for us all, and as I have said, the final national
	curriculum, which is due to be published shortly, will make PE compulsory at all four key stages. The status of cooking and healthy eating will reflect the recent school food plan, so it is right that we do that, but ultimately it should be up to individual schools to plan their own curriculum to ensure that ample time is available to cover all subjects.

Diana Johnson: Does the Minister agree that taking part in competitive swimming should be available to school pupils? Will he discuss with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government the unfair funding for my home town of Hull, because our swimming pools are being closed, including Ennerdale, which is the only competition-sized pool in the city?

Edward Timpson: I am happy to look at the particular situation that the hon. Lady has articulated, but it is up to local councils to make those decisions. Many councils are opening swimming pools around the country, and swimming will be a compulsory activity in the new curriculum, as we have seen the benefits that it can bring to a healthy lifestyle for many children across the country.

Clive Efford: The Government were warned when they cut the money for school sport partnerships in 2010 that there would be fewer children in schools doing sport. Survey after survey has shown just that. The Taking Part survey, which was published last month, showed that there had been a 10% cut since 2009 in the number of children aged five to 10 doing sport in school. What are the Government going to do to turn that around?

Edward Timpson: It is disappointing to see the results of the Taking Part survey, but the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman have to make a decision soon about where they stand on school sport, and whether they are going to join the consensus that recognises that intervening early in a child’s life and making sport, through the work that we are doing with primary schools, an integral part of their life is the way forward. I am happy to discuss with him how he can join us to make sure that the huge amount of investment that we have made in school sports, which is ring-fenced and will be inspected by Ofsted, will have a real impact in the long term. I am open to those conversations, but he has to make a choice as to whether he is going to continue to carp from the sidelines or engage in the real debate.

Primary School Places

Stella Creasy: What steps he is taking to ensure a sufficient supply of primary school places; and if he will make a statement.

David Laws: We are spending £5 billion in this Parliament on creating new school places—more than double the amount spent by the previous Government over the same time frame. We have worked closely with councils on the reforms to school place funding, so it is now more accurate than ever before, targeting money to the places where the demand is greatest.

Stella Creasy: The Department for Education will be well aware of the concerns of parents in Walthamstow about the lack of school places, 400 of them having written to the Department. The only new school which has opened on its watch, a free school, has no outdoor play space. Are the Government happy, especially given the previous comments about sport, that this is good enough for kids in my constituency?

David Laws: We are very proud of our record, not just across the country, but in the hon. Lady’s area. I looked at the figures in preparation for today’s session, comparing the amount of basic need funding under the Labour Government with the allocations during this Parliament. Under the previous Government the allocations to her authority were £1 million, less than £1 million, less than £1 million, and so on—£11.2 million in total over the previous Parliament. Under this coalition Government the allocation will not be £11.2 million. It will be £126.7 million.

Jake Berry: Does my right hon. Friend think the policy of uncontrolled immigration pursued by the Opposition has led to some of the pressure that we see on primary school places in areas such as Rossendale and Darwen?

David Laws: There certainly are pressures from immigration, and there are other pressures on the birth rate too. These pressures have been known about since 2003, and in spite of that the Labour Government took 200,000 places in primary schools out of circulation, notwithstanding the warnings from those now on the Government Benches.

Stephen Twigg: We have heard an incredibly complacent answer from the Minister. In 2010 the Secretary of State promised a new generation of good small schools with smaller class sizes. Since then we have seen a trebling of the number of very large primary schools, and in the past year a doubling in the number of infant classes of more than 30 children. Does the Minister not regret the decision in 2010 to cancel Labour’s primary school building programme?

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman needs to acknowledge, in fairness, that this Government are allocating more than twice the amount his Government allocated for basic need. He needs to acknowledge that his Government made a mistake in withdrawing 200,000 places from primary education in the period from 2003. If he really is concerned about our capital expenditure on schools, perhaps he can tell me whether the Labour party is planning to increase it.

Stephen Twigg: It is time that this Government took some responsibility for their own decisions. They have been in power for three and a half years and we have a crisis in primary school places. Last week the Secretary of State told us that free schools would solve this. Next year only one in three of the free schools that will open will be primary schools. How does that solve the problem? Will he change course even at this stage and give top priority in capital spending for new school places in areas that need extra school places?

David Laws: If the hon. Gentleman were doing his homework, he would know that the vast majority of new free schools are in areas of basic need and that almost half the free schools that we have just announced are in places such as London. I gently say to him that I did not hear an answer to the question of whether he is really suggesting that we need additional capital expenditure. What many in the House and outside will detect is the Labour party, in the same way as it did over Syria, offering criticisms but no serious policy solutions.

Dan Rogerson: Further to my right hon. Friend’s answer concerning the impact of free schools, can he assure me that those that are planned in areas where the need may not be as acute will remain under review, so that any further capital investment can be prioritised to deliver the places that we need?

David Laws: I can absolutely guarantee that we will continue to prioritise areas of basic need for free schools, and that we will make sure that we have the allocations of money to deal with the basic need problems left to us by the previous Government.

John Healey: Will the Schools Minister welcome the willingness of Rotherham council to add to the money that the Department is providing under the basic need funding to allow Cortonwood infants school and Brampton the Ellis junior school to expand their places? Why is it that half the free schools open already are in areas where there is no need for extra places?

David Laws: The second statement is simply wrong. The overwhelming majority of free schools are in areas of basic need. On the first question, I would be very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss his specific proposal. We want to be as pragmatic and helpful as possible to councils that face these pressures.

Justin Tomlinson: Following the recent Public Accounts Committee report, it is clear to me that we have pressure on primary school places because Labour was obsessed with building landlocked expensive private finance initiative schools and decided to remove a quarter of a million primary school places during a baby boom. What is the quickest way for local communities to respond?

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that from 2003 onwards, the Office for National Statistics was pointing to one of the biggest increases in the birth rate for many generations. Those who are now on the Government Benches were warning the Labour Government that there would be a real crisis in primary school places. In spite of that, 200,000 places were removed between 2003 and 2010. Labour Members will be pleased to know that almost all the 200,000 places have been replaced by this coalition Government.

Ofsted Inspections: Free Schools

Henry Smith: What assessment he has made of the outcome of Ofsted inspections of the first free schools.

Michael Gove: The first 24 free schools to open have been inspected by Ofsted and three quarters were judged to be either good or outstanding. One school was judged to be inadequate and we expect it to take urgent action to bring about rapid improvement. It is being closely monitored by Ofsted and the Department.

Henry Smith: What advice has my right hon. Friend given to Ofsted on the assessment of free schools, such as the Discovery New School in my constituency, given that they do not always meet the rigid national criteria of other schools?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Ofsted has, in its new revised handbook, taken account of the fact that more parents are exercising choice in a way that inevitably compels Ofsted to review its guidance, and explicitly it says:
	“Certain types of schools (such as faith, Steiner and Montessori schools) exist as maintained or independent schools. When inspecting such…provisions, inspectors should familiarise themselves with the background information to these types of schools”.

Alison McGovern: We heard at Prime Minister’s questions last week about the impact of free schools on the cost of school uniforms. Whatever the rights and wrongs of free schools or uniform policy, may I give the Secretary of State a second chance on this, and will he explain what steps he has been taking, in relation to free or other schools, to keep the cost of school uniforms down for parents?

Michael Gove: This is an important issue. Parents need reassurance that we are doing everything possible to keep down the cost of school uniforms. Clear guidance is issued by the Department for Education on how costs can be kept down. I subsequently read the report that was mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions last week and it referred to 13 schools, a small sample, but there were one or two worrying cases. I believe that those worrying cases may well be voluntary-aided schools rather than academy or free schools, but we shall keep the issue constantly under review.

Nick Gibb: During the past 20 years, many Ofsted inspectors have required schools to adopt particular teaching methods, which some would call progressive, but which the evidence suggests have failed. The new Ofsted inspection framework now makes it clear that
	“Inspectors must not advocate a particular method of teaching or show preference towards a specific lesson structure.”
	Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that message is heard loud and clear by both inspectors and teachers, as he did in his excellent Policy Exchange speech on Thursday: that teachers who want to adopt a more effective teacher-led approach to teaching are now free to do so?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is right. One of the many reasons why Sir Michael Wilshaw is proving an outstanding chief inspector is that he has moved away from the rigid prescription that forced methods of teaching on schools which were not in the best interests of children, and he has ensured that we now have an approach that encourages teachers to teach, and that
	once more says that direct instruction, and the pedagogy that concentrates on knowledge, should be at the heart of what happens in our schools.

Grahame Morris: It has been reported that the Durham free school has nine staff for 30 pupils. Does that, in addition to its unlimited capital, represent good value for the taxpayer or is it an act of political folly?

Michael Gove: I think it represents excellent value, because for far too long, as the hon. Gentleman knows, schools in County Durham, particularly in the east of the county, have not been good enough. The fact that parents at last have a challenger school, helping to raise standards in an area where, frankly, working-class children have been let down for far too long by a complacent Labour party, is to be welcomed. A genuine progressive would welcome it instead of carping and reading from the NASUWT National Union of Teachers hymn book.

Philip Davies: One in a Million free school opened last week in Bradford and was over-subscribed. I am sure that it will have excellent Ofsted inspections in the future. May I thank Lord Hill for the work that he put in to ensure that the school opened successfully, and will the Secretary of State confirm that either he or another Minister will visit One in a Million free school in the very near future?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend has been a great champion for the school. I will do everything possible to ensure that I or another Minister visits Bradford as soon as possible. It is instructive that in Bradford politicians of every party—including Respect—apart from Labour are backing free schools. Why is it that Labour stands out against them?

Mr Speaker: I call Theresa Pearce. Not here.

Unqualified Teachers

Kelvin Hopkins: What his policy is on the use of unqualified teachers in schools.

Michael Gove: Head teachers are best placed to make staffing judgments in individual schools.

Kelvin Hopkins: Under Government changes, more than half of all secondary schools can now employ unqualified teachers on a permanent basis, yet the Tory manifesto of 2010 stated:
	“The single most important thing for a good education is for every child to have access to a good teacher. We will take steps to enhance the status of the teaching profession”.
	Is it not now clear that the Government are going in precisely the opposite direction?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to point out that the proportion of postgraduate trainees in every subject, including non-target subjects, who have a 2:1 or higher degree, or a comparable overseas degree, has risen in each of the last three years. Teachers in our state schools are better qualified than ever.

Julian Brazier: I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s robust answer. Does he agree that the people who are qualified to teach maths might in fact be those with good maths degrees, rather than teaching qualifications, and will he commend the university of Oxford for including teaching in schools as a possible module in its maths course?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman’s natural modesty prevents him from pointing out to the House that he is himself a distinguished mathematician, but that is now a matter of record.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is a very distinguished mathematician and Member of this House, and he is absolutely right: we need to ensure that gifted mathematicians, both recent graduates and those who are changing career, have the opportunity to ensure that the next generation are introduced to the wonder and beauty of mathematics.

Barry Sheerman: Does the question the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) just asked not emphasise the point that we need highly trained teachers? We need to get the best out of teachers. They might be good at their academic subjects, but I believe that teachers are made, not born. Is that not right? Will the Secretary of State disassociate himself from the statement by the head of Brighton college, who thinks the reverse?

Michael Gove: It is difficult for me to disassociate myself from anything the headmaster of Brighton college says, because he was at the same college as me, in the year ahead, and is a much smarter guy. I owe almost everything I learnt at university to cribbing off him. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The whole point about teacher training is that it is not just a matter of one year of postgraduate study; it is a matter of continually refining one’s craft and profession collaboratively with other great teachers.

Bob Russell: I recall enthusiasm being expressed in the past for retiring members of Her Majesty’s armed forces being recruited as teachers. Can the Secretary of State indicate how many people retiring from Her Majesty’s armed forces have become teachers?

Michael Gove: I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact figures. Our Troops to Teachers initiative has ensured that a growing number of those officers, both non-commissioned and commissioned, who have left the armed forces are now entering teacher training.

Paul Goggins: I can assure the Secretary of State that I wish him no harm, but if later today he was taken ill and rushed to an accident and emergency department, would it be enough for him that the doctors and nurses were outstanding and talented individuals? Would he not expect them also to be qualified?

Michael Gove: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman wishes me no ill. The one thing that I would take comfort from would be if the school had been
	ranked good or outstanding by Ofsted. I am pleased that the national health service is adopting our method of grading schools and applying it to hospitals, and I am pleased that under this Government, according to the chief inspector today, we have seen an unprecedented rate of school improvement.

GCSE Results (South Essex)

David Amess: What assessment he has made of the 2013 GCSE results in the south Essex area.

Elizabeth Truss: There have been some very good results at GCSE in south Essex. In common with the rest of the country, we have seen a big rise in the number of students doing core academic subjects, thanks to the English baccalaureate. We have seen a 16% rise in modern languages and a record number of girls taking chemistry and physics as GCSEs.

David Amess: So will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Belfairs academy in my constituency on a staggering 21% increase in the number of pupils obtaining more than five A* to C grades and a 23% increase overall? Will she congratulate all Southend West schools on their wonderful results, which underline why Southend should have been named city of culture 2017?

Elizabeth Truss: I congratulate the students and teachers at the school, and across Southend, on their excellent results. I hope that some of those students will be the upwardly mobile political giants that my hon. Friend wants in the House of Commons in future.

Robert Halfon: Does my hon. Friend agree that exam results would improve even more in Essex and across the country if further education college students who were eligible for free school meals, got them?

Elizabeth Truss: We are rightly ensuring that all students who do not achieve a C in English and maths at GCSE continue to study them at FE colleges and beyond, so that they get the results that they need for their future careers.

Academies

Tom Blenkinsop: What his policy is on academies; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Gove: I am in favour of academies.

Tom Blenkinsop: I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. Academies have had freedom over the curriculum that they teach for some time. When is he going to extend that to all schools—and if he is not going to, why not?

Michael Gove: It is perfectly possible for any school to apply for academy status, but we need to make sure that the leadership team are capable of taking advantage of all the freedoms. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman
	for endorsing academies; I wish that more of his colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), who is no longer in his place, would do so.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) will recognise, as I and academy sponsors do, that it is not only freedom over the curriculum that matters, but freedom over staffing and freedom to pay good teachers more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in condemning the strike by the NUT and the NASUWT, which his Front-Bench colleagues have so conspicuously failed to do.

Amber Rudd: Academy sponsorship is transforming education in Hastings. The Hastings and St Leonards academies have just been rated good by Ofsted, which represents the long journey they have been on. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming ARK, which has taken over the sponsorship of two of our other secondary schools in Hastings?

Michael Gove: I am absolutely delighted that the number of sponsored academies is increasing in areas where educational performance has been too low for too long. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for being such a doughty champion of the children of Hastings, who were let down under the last Government and are being rescued under this one.

Barbara Keeley: Further to the Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) earlier, I put it to him that the reason for the spiralling costs of school uniforms is that new free schools and academies are requiring branded items available only from special shops. That is the problem.
	At one Manchester academy, the back-to-school costs were £302. I should say to the Secretary of State that, following last week’s question to the Prime Minister, I received feedback from all across the country that the issue was a problem. It could become a barrier to parents’ choice of schools. What action is the Secretary of State going to take?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for directing me towards the Family Action report, which I found interesting and sometimes sobering reading. The report identified 13 schools; they are not a representative sample. Those with the most significant additional costs for uniform tended to be voluntary aided schools rather than academies or free schools. There is no evidence that academies or free schools impose any additional uniform costs over maintained schools and there is no evidence that the overall increase in uniform costs has run out of kilter with other costs that families face. However, the Department is renewing its guidance to make sure that schools make the right choice for parents.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is particularly exciting for the academy programme when primary and secondary schools are brought together in the same academy structure, such as the Montsaye academy in Rothwell and the Kettering Buccleuch and Kettering Science academies in Kettering itself?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Northamptonshire has been one of the counties most transformed by academies involving a range of sponsors. I thank my hon. Friend for the energetic work that he has done on behalf of the children of Kettering, making sure that standards and expectations are increased.

NEETs

Andrew Turner: What proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds were not in education, employment or training in (a) the UK and (b) Isle of Wight constituency in the latest quarter for which figures are available.

Matthew Hancock: Some 9.1% of 16 to 18-year-olds in England were not in education, employment or training in April to June 2013. This is a fall of 1.4 percentage points on the same period last year and the lowest figure in a decade.
	Some 4.7% of 16 to 18-year-olds in the Isle of Wight were NEET at the end of 2012. That is a fall of 0.5% on the same period in the previous year. The progress is good, but there is much more to do.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he clarify whether schools and colleges are required to get young people a GCSE in English or maths at level C or above or whether that is an aspiration? What sanctions will be imposed on those that fail to achieve it?

Matthew Hancock: It is a requirement on schools and colleges that students who have not achieved a C in English and maths GCSE will continue to study those subjects. From next year they will lose funding if they do not, because English and maths are the most important skills. They must study towards GCSEs but can take interim qualifications, such as functional skills, as a stepping stone.

Diane Abbott: Surely if we want post-16-year-olds to stay on in education, young people of that age who attend further education colleges should be eligible for free school meals in exactly the same way as if they were at school.

Matthew Hancock: The question of free school meals post-16 is very important. However, schools are not funded to provide them after the age of 16, so making sure that we have a level playing field requires that we get the funding organised as well.

Graham Stuart: Ahead of tomorrow’s Ofsted report on careers guidance in schools, does the Minister agree on the importance of careers advice in schools? Does he also agree that it is not working well and that it would be much improved if the National Careers Service were funded to provide support and a challenge for schools in fulfilling their duty?

Matthew Hancock: As my hon. Friend well knows, I am a passionate supporter of the inspiration and mentoring of children in schools and adults of all ages. It is important to make sure that the right people—pupils
	and students—get the right advice. I am looking forward to tomorrow’s Ofsted report. We will respond and make it very clear what we are going to do to ensure that as many people as possible have such inspiration, mentoring, support and advice.

Free Schools

Angie Bray: How many free schools are open in England.

Michael Gove: One hundred and seventy-four.

Angie Bray: My right hon. Friend is aware that I am a huge fan of free schools, which not only offer extra school places but massively increase choice. As he will also be aware, there is great pressure on school places in Ealing. This week an application is going to his Department for a new free school, Ealing Fields, which has the support of the parents of 1,200 pupils, and counting. Does he agree that that application should be considered positively and favourably? We are all keeping our fingers crossed.

Michael Gove: Of course we will look at this application as we look at all applications. Every time my hon. Friend has recommended that I meet a head teacher from Ealing, whether Lubna Khan or Alice Hudson, I have been overjoyed to do so. I am delighted that outstanding head teachers working in our schools are being celebrated by my hon. Friend, and that people such as Alice Hudson are providing the opportunity to open new free schools so that more children can benefit.

David Burrowes: The Secretary of State and the shadow Education Secretary have visited and praised Cuckoo Hall academies in Enfield. Does my right hon. Friend share the frustration felt by me and by parents in my constituency that when there is the opportunity to spread the excellence of free schools in my constituency—for example, in the old Southgate town hall—it is repeatedly being blocked by the Labour council?

Michael Gove: I do share my hon. Friend’s frustration. It is incumbent on Labour Front Benchers to show leadership and to call out the local authorities, from London to the north-east, that are standing in the way of opportunity. Until they do so, I am afraid that we will have to conclude that Labour is still too weak to govern.

Achievement Levels

John Pugh: What recent assessment he has made of the relative achievement levels of boys and girls.

Elizabeth Truss: Girls outperform boys at key stage and at GCSE by about 10%, except in the subject of mathematics, where boys slightly outperform girls. As everybody is aware, that is the subject with the highest earnings premium. Girls are also less likely to study the high-value subjects of physics, maths and chemistry at A-level.

John Pugh: Our biggest educational problem is the long tail of underachieving boys in the system. What measurable progress, compared with international standards, have we made with this very stubborn problem?

Elizabeth Truss: Ultimately, schools are best placed to improve the attainment of low-performing students. From 2012, we have given schools extra information about the gap in performance between boys and girls so that they can address it. The introduction of the phonics check at age six means that we can identify boys, in particular, who are struggling with reading and give them extra help. The introduction of more focus on arithmetic in primary schools, with times tables and better testing, means that we can make sure that girls get up to the standard they need to be at before they reach secondary school.

Kate Green: The Children’s Commissioner has shown that black Caribbean boys are three times more likely than white pupils to be excluded from school. What is the Minister doing to understand the reasons for that disparity in school exclusions and to make sure that no injustice or unfairness is seriously impacting on the performance of those boys?

Elizabeth Truss: As I said in my previous answer, it is up to schools and teachers to identify under-performing students and groups. The important thing is that we focus on this as early as possible. That is why we are focusing on improving quality in early-years education in order to make sure that students get the basics in terms of vocabulary and counting, which will lead to better performance later on.

Study Leave

Jim Cunningham: If he will make an assessment of the effects of the provision of study leave for students in years 11, 12 and 13 on exam performance.

Elizabeth Truss: On analysis of the absence data, we have found that when schools use study leave sparingly and ensure that students are doing the right thing, it can be beneficial for academic outcomes.

Jim Cunningham: Study leave before key exams can help high-performing students reach their potential, but can be to the detriment of lower to middle-performing students. Some schools are therefore cancelling study leave for all students. Will the Government advise schools to tailor their study leave policy so that students who would benefit from study leave are able to do so?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right that some students benefit from greater independent study and that others need more support at school. The Department’s work indicates that teachers are making those decisions. They are offering supported study, learning opportunities and drop-in sessions at school for some students, while others have the benefit of study leave. We issued advice to schools in August to make that clear to them.

Andrew Bridgen: Study leave may well allow some pupils to develop independent study skills, but does my hon. Friend agree that ultimately it is for schools to decide the best policy for their pupils with regard to studying for exams?

Elizabeth Truss: Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is the responsibility of schools. It is also in a school’s interest to make sure that students are given the best possible study opportunities. We think that schools should use study leave sparingly and make sure that there are opportunities to study at school when students do not have a home environment conducive to study.

Kevin Brennan: When the Secretary of State said recently that every child should have a room of their own in which to study, was he deliberately undermining the Government’s bedroom tax policy or was he using his platform as Education Secretary to push back the frontiers of ignorance a bit further by giving us a practical demonstration of the concept of irony?

Elizabeth Truss: My Secretary of State was making an absolutely clear case for a better planning system in order to ensure that we have the homes we need across the country. As I have said, there should be opportunities available, both at school and in the home, for children to study.

Child Guardians

Emma Lewell-Buck: What assessment his Department has made of the role of child guardians and their effects on the length of court proceedings in public law cases.

Edward Timpson: The length of care proceedings and the role of the children’s guardian were examined as part of the family justice review by David Norgrove. Factors such as the early appointment of a guardian to a case can be particularly important. Performance on this continues to be closely monitored. I am pleased to report that appointments are consistently taking place within the agreed two-day target, with the average appointment taking place in half a day.

Emma Lewell-Buck: In my experience it is often the case that, despite the best intentions, children’s guardians add another layer of complexity to an already cumbersome court process, causing delay and introducing children to yet another unfamiliar face. What action is the Minister taking to improve the effectiveness of guardians in putting the interests of children first?

Edward Timpson: I spent the best part of a decade working in the family courts on exactly these sorts of cases, and many people, including myself, value the independent voice that the guardian gives to children who are in care. We know from the public law outline, which has recently been updated, that since the publication of our Children and Families Bill the length of care proceedings has already fallen from 56 to 42 weeks and that the quality of the reporting from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service has continued to improve,
	as has its timeliness. I will listen to what the hon. Lady has to say about the role of the guardians, but at the moment I believe they play an extremely important role.

Anne McIntosh: I am aware that the Government are trying to reduce the length of the court proceedings for care orders, but is my hon. Friend mindful of the fact that when a parent wishes to maintain custody of the child and there are circumstances that the court has to investigate, the case will take as long as it takes?

Edward Timpson: Our reforms to the family courts system do nothing to undermine the discretion of the judiciary in ensuring that cases are considered justly. No decision is made without the best interests of the child being at the forefront of their minds and that will continue to be the case. I reassure my hon. Friend that the issue that she raises has been very much addressed.

Young Apprenticeship Starts

Stephen McCabe: How many young apprenticeship starts there were in the latest period for which figures are available.

Matthew Hancock: There were 129,900 apprenticeship starts by those aged under 19 in 2011-12.

Stephen McCabe: Given that the number of young apprenticeships is going down, has the Minister given any thought to the proposal of the Institute of Directors that there should be an adjustment in favour of young apprenticeships to take account of how difficult the job market is for under-19s?

Matthew Hancock: The number of apprentices in that age group is 10% higher than it was. I saw that report and it makes an attractive argument. We pay twice as much for the training of apprentices who are under the age of 19, but I will certainly pay regard to that report.

Sure Start

Graeme Morrice: What plans he has for Sure Start children’s centres.

Elizabeth Truss: The Department issued guidance in April to make it clear that the core purpose of children’s centres is to support families and improve outcomes for children. We want to see a greater emphasis on evidence-based policies. Ofsted has also sharpened its focus on outcomes for children.

Graeme Morrice: I thank the Minister for her response. However, the Government’s own figures show that there are 562 fewer children’s centres than at the time of the last election. How many more community assets does the Minister want to see lost?

Elizabeth Truss: The reality is that the vast majority of those centres have been merged or have seen their management restructured. Only 1% of children’s centres—
	that is 45 children’s centres—have closed outright. The hon. Gentleman is using a misleading figure. The fact is that Labour Members would rather have bureaucracy and management than outcomes-based front-line work. Are they seriously saying that they would reintroduce the managers and the bureaucracy?

Sharon Hodgson: That is 562 fewer children’s centres already. [Interruption.] Those are your figures. Another 23 children’s centres are scheduled to go in Tory Kent. According to last week’s report from the Children’s Society—[Interruption.] The Children’s Society is rubbish—is that what he has just said? According to the report by the Children’s Society, which is anything but rubbish, there will be a budget cut of more than 50% over this Parliament. While millionaires enjoy their tax cuts, vital public services such as Sure Start are left to wither on the vine. When will these Ministers admit that their choices will cost all of us much more in the long run and apologise to the parents who have lost such valued services?

Elizabeth Truss: I do not think that the hon. Lady listened to my previous answer. Those centres have not closed. The Government and local authorities have been saving money by reducing bureaucracy and management and running things more efficiently, which is what Conservative-led Governments do. She will be pleased to hear that our recruitment of early-years teachers is above trajectory, so there will be even more quality personnel in our children’s centres and nurseries.

Care System

Bill Esterson: If his Department will publish a strategy setting out plans for children in the care system; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Timpson: Early last year, Ministers considered whether to develop an overarching strategy for children in care. It was decided that, as there was general consensus about what needed to improve, it would be better simply to get on and drive a programme of change. Since then we have set in place reforms to ensure that all children have strong and stable placements, achieve good educational outcomes, and receive ongoing quality support when they leave care.

Bill Esterson: On strong and stable placements, when children in care are in social housing, foster carers still have to pay the bedroom tax. The Secretary of State says that he wants children to have a room to study in, but that just cannot happen however many houses there are and however strong the planning system. Will he urgently encourage his colleagues to provide an exemption from the bedroom tax for all children in foster care?

Edward Timpson: The hon. Gentleman will know that, prior to taking on this position, I worked closely with the Fostering Network to ensure that the exemption already in place for foster carers came to fruition. I reassure him that, through the work I am doing across Departments with Lord Freud and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, we will continue to review
	the matter carefully through a proper evaluation of the impact that the measure may be having. I have that reassurance and will continue with that work.

Peter Bone: I am grateful that the Minister is getting on with doing things rather than writing reports. One thing the Government could do for child victims of human trafficking who go into local authority care is identify them as victims of trafficking, so we can see whether they are re-trafficked. That is a flaw in the system at the moment.

Edward Timpson: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important and serious point about a problem that still blights too many children, and which continues in our communities, often under the radar when it needs to be more prominent. I will look carefully at what he says and I am happy to discuss the matter with him further to see what more we can do.

Lisa Nandy: Ministers’ plans to outsource children in care placements to private companies such as Serco were recently blocked by the House of Lords after an evaluation of similar trials under the previous Government raised serious concerns about the impact on children, questioning the continuity of knowledge, skills and care in the private sector. Will the Minister tell the House in whose interest he is pressing ahead with these plans, and say why he does not consider it reckless to remove at the same time essential independent checks on those companies?

Edward Timpson: We must be honest about the fact that the current system is failing too many vulnerable children, and it cannot continue. The previous Government introduced in legislation exemptions to the status quo to allow social work practices to develop, which is outsourcing some of the children’s services functions. We think that that is an encouraging way to look at innovative ways of bringing people into working with vulnerable children, so that they get the best possible care. The hon. Lady should look carefully at what we are doing, because it is in the interests of children. That is why we need it to go forward.

Topical Questions

Andrew Gwynne: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: Today Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools reported that his inspectors have recorded a rate of improvement in our schools that was “unprecedented” in Ofsted’s 21-year history. He said figures show that 600,000 more children
	“are now getting at least a good standard of education”
	when compared with the beginning of the last academic year. He records his thanks to the best generation of head teachers ever for that improvement in our schools, and I would like to record my thanks as well.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. To give
	“every parent access to a good school”
	was the Tory party manifesto commitment to parents, but the reality could not be more different for many of those parents, given the Secretary of State’s crisis in primary school places. Given his obsession with spending money on free schools in areas where there are already enough school places, meaning that class sizes are at bursting point in other parts of the country, does he accept that that policy is denying many children the good start they deserve?

Michael Gove: The chief inspector’s words stand by themselves. Never in the history of Ofsted over the past 21 years have so many children been enjoying a good education. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have wanted to congratulate teachers on that.
	The other point is that we are spending more than twice as much on providing new school places in primary schools as the previous Government. They were warned repeatedly by Conservative Members of Parliament, but they did nothing because they were recklessly committed to a programme of spending and borrowing in a wasteful fashion, which betrayed a generation. Now Opposition Members may mewl and puke as they wish, but I am afraid the guilt is written all over their faces and is there in the National Audit Office report.

Margot James: I was shocked to learn that the London School of Economics made only four offers to students in the entire borough of Dudley this year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that secondary schools should be doing more to encourage students with academic potential to choose courses at GCSE and A-level that will enable them to apply to our top universities with a reasonable chance of success?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I was delighted to visit an outstanding sixth-form college in her constituency that is leading the way. In a spirit of bipartisanship, her commitment to higher standards in education is shared by the Labour Member of Parliament for Dudley North, Mr Austin, who has worked hard with her and with Chris Kelly to ensure that we can persuade children to read the subjects in university that will give them a better chance to get great jobs. That is why the English baccalaureate, which Labour Front Benchers so denounced, has been such a good thing.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Education Secretary’s study will be complete when he recognises that it is not appropriate to name Members in the Chamber. I know he has been here only eight years. He will get there eventually.

Tristram Hunt: Nearly 1 million young people are unemployed in this country and school leavers are desperate to make the right decisions about their futures, yet, as the Chair of the Education Committee has pointed out, the Government are overseeing the destruction of professional careers advice for 14 to 16-year-olds. Why does the Government’s National Careers Service make 17 times as many interventions for adults as it makes for young people? Does the Secretary of State really believe that his careers strategy is delivering for today’s schoolchildren?

Michael Gove: May I give the hon. Gentleman some careers advice? When his boss’s job is under threat and in jeopardy, asking a question of that kind is ill-advised. The truth is that more young people than ever before are studying subjects—physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics—that guarantee a great future for them. The single most powerful intervention to ensure that young people are studying the right subjects was the introduction of the English baccalaureate, which he supported, but which all the other Labour Front Benchers opposed. They are divided on aspiration and, I am afraid, weak when it comes to rigour.

Peter Aldous: The Government have introduced a variety of initiatives to support small and medium-sized enterprises to take on apprentices, which are welcomed by Lowestoft college in my constituency. However, there is a concern that a postcode lottery is developing, in that a number of different schemes and levels of support are available across the college’s catchment area. Is the Minister aware of that, and does he agree that local enterprise partnerships could have a role in co-ordinating such schemes?

Matthew Hancock: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a passionate supporter of small businesses and of apprentices in them. The majority of apprentices are in small businesses and the Government do what we can to encourage that. In some places, local authorities top up the support we give. I am thrilled when they do so, but if we can do more to ensure that provision is consistent across LEP areas, we should do it.

Bill Esterson: Both the Minister for Schools and the Secretary of State completely failed to address the question they were asked about free schools policy. Fifty-one per cent. of all free schools have been built in areas where there are surplus places while there is a crisis in primary school places elsewhere. Is not the point that free schools policy has failed to deal with the shortage of places where they are most needed?

David Laws: No, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The vast majority of places in free schools are in areas of basic need. As I indicated earlier, of the recent free schools announced, around half are in the London areas where the pressure is greatest, so the figures he gives are simply inaccurate.

James Morris: In the past four years, Windsor high school, Earls high school and St Michael’s high school in my constituency have opened excellent sixth forms, adding to the excellent work done at Ormiston Forge academy and the local further education college. What is the Secretary of State doing to allow high- performance schools to set up sixth forms and to give them the necessary resources to expand?

Michael Gove: I welcome all schools that wish to set up sixth forms. One of the easiest ways to do so is to acquire academy status.

Heidi Alexander: The Schools Minister was confident that the money set aside by the Government to meet rising demand for primary places will be sufficient, but parents in Lewisham do not share his confidence. Will he meet me and a representative from the borough to explore the significant shortfall it has identified in its primary capital programme?

David Laws: I would be delighted to do that. I just gently point out to those in local authorities who have been raising fears recently, that the statistics they put out a few days ago included projections of future increases in the primary population, but without giving consideration to the additional places that will be created beyond 2012 from the additional capital we have allocated. Local authorities need to be very careful with the information we have given, but I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady.

Rehman Chishti: It was recently reported that the Government taskforce on tackling extremism was looking at encouraging Muslim soldiers to visit schools to improve community cohesion. How far has the scheme got?

Michael Gove: This is an excellent idea put forward by my noble Friend Baroness Warsi. We want to ensure that we use the commemorations of the beginning of the first world war, in which so many empire and Commonwealth soldiers fought so bravely, and other opportunities in which we can affirm the strength of modern multicultural Britain, to do what she has outlined.

Luciana Berger: Further to the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), and the recent report that one in four parents are having to borrow to pay for school uniforms, the Secretary of State will be as shocked as I was to learn today that food banks, including in Liverpool, are now having to distribute uniform to parents who cannot afford it. I listened carefully to his responses earlier concerning the report and guidance, but what more can he and his Government do to ensure that no students turn up to school embarrassed because they do not have the right clothes?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady and her colleagues raise an important point. I had a look at the Family Action report, which details some of these concerns. As I said, the examples it used were not entirely representative. I had the opportunity to visit a food bank in my constituency on Friday. I appreciate that there are families who face considerable pressures. Those pressures are often the result of decisions that they have taken which mean they are not best able to manage their finances. We need to ensure that support is not just financial, and that the right decisions are made.

Gordon Henderson: I listened carefully to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), in response to a question from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who raised the issue of Sure Start children’s centre closures in Kent. One of those centres
	is Woodgrove children’s centre in one of the most deprived areas of Sittingbourne. Will my hon. Friend take steps to reassure herself that Woodgrove’s closure is justified, and will she persuade Kent county council to change its mind if it is not?

Elizabeth Truss: Ultimately, it is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that parents get the support they need and that children get the right outcomes. We are refocusing the system on outcomes and quality, and that is what Kent county council should be looking at.

John Cryer: How many civil servants at the Department for Education are working on the free schools programme?

Michael Gove: More than 100 civil servants are working on the free schools programme—a testimony to its popularity. Last Thursday, I had the opportunity to talk to them and share a drink—in my case, apple juice—to congratulate them on their work. I was overjoyed to discover that this has been one of the most successful and inspiring things they have done in their distinguished careers in public service.

Stephen Phillips: My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the extra costs of funding rural school places. Will he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that school places in Lincolnshire are adequately funded?

David Laws: My hon. and learned Friend raises an important issue. For too long Governments have been aware that there is not fair funding of schools throughout the country, yet in the past no action has been taken. That is why the Chancellor announced in the spending review that we will be holding a consultation into a fair national funding formula for schools, which will deal with precisely the issue he raises.

Nicholas Dakin: Given the further squeeze on the funding of education for 16 to 19-year olds, is it not now the time for the Government to give sixth-form colleges the same freedom on VAT that is enjoyed by universities, technical colleges, free schools, academies and maintained schools?

Matthew Hancock: I am highly aware of the pressures on sixth-form college budgets, and of the work they do to ensure standards are very high. I am in constant dialogue with sixth-form college leaders to explore all options to ensure that they can continue to deliver the very high standards they achieve today.

Charlie Elphicke: A recent National Audit Office report showed an encouraging 10% rise in adoptions. What is being done to help even more potential adopters to have the confidence to come forward and to support them through what can be a trying process?

Edward Timpson: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the encouraging rise in the number of people who want to adopt coming forward and the number of
	adoptions taking place. However, we still need to do more to ensure there are no barriers in the way of anyone who wants to come forward and give a child who needs the best possible start in life that permanent future, and we are determined to see it through.

Emma Reynolds: The Secretary of State said last week that poor children who do not have their own room to do their homework in do not achieve their full potential. Can he explain the policy implications of that statement, and can we assume that he will be arguing against the bedroom tax?

Michael Gove: The policy implications are clear: every Member of this House should support the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), in his planning reforms, which will ensure that the price of houses falls and that more big family houses are built. It is shameful that the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has taken the Labour party into a position where it is the party of nimbys, the party opposed to opportunity and the party opposed to growth and development. That is an example of how weak the Labour party is: it blows with every wind instead of standing up for the next generation.

Mark Menzies: Last week, I had the pleasure of welcoming to Parliament Brad Hodgson from BAE Systems, who is currently north-west young apprentice of the year. Does the Minister agree that driving up the quality of apprenticeships is every bit as important as increasing the numbers, if they are truly to have parity with universities?

Matthew Hancock: Next week, I am looking forward to going to see BAE for myself, because it has one of the best apprenticeship systems in the country. A higher
	quality of apprenticeships is undoubtedly just as important as the number of people going through them, and that is what we will continue to focus on.

Julie Hilling: The youth service has always been the fourth arm of education. Now that responsibility is transferred to the Cabinet Office, how will the Secretary of State ensure a robust educational curriculum in the youth service and youth work?

Michael Gove: I am absolutely delighted that my gifted colleagues, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), are now leading on youth policy. The huge success of the National Citizen Service, which has seen more and more young people from every community working together in the spirit outlined by the Prime Minister, shows that the right men are leading the right policy for our country. What a pity that Labour will not back it.

Mr Speaker: The patience and politeness of the hon. Lady are now rewarded: I call Annette Brooke.

Annette Brooke: Support for bus travel is not available to my constituents in sixth forms or similar in rural Dorset—a problem added to when they now stay on for an extra year—which is placing a great burden on hard-working parents. Will the Secretary of State discuss that issue with Ministers in the Department for Transport?

Matthew Hancock: I have received representations from the hon. Lady on that issue. Ensuring that the costs of transport are represented in the bursaries available to young people is an important issue that we are looking at closely. I will ensure that the right representations are made to the Department for Transport, and I am happy to meet her to take that forward.

G20

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G20 summit in St Petersburg. The meeting focused on two vital issues: the crisis in Syria and the core business of the G20, which is the future of the global economy.
	Let me take Syria first. The G20 was never going to reach unanimity on what action is needed on Syria, but the case made by those countries who believe in a strong international response to the use of chemical weapons was, I believe, extremely powerful. Britain supported a statement, sponsored by the US and signed by 12 members of the G20, that condemns the horrific chemical weapons attack, points to the clear evidence of the Assad regime’s responsibility for that attack and calls for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world’s rules. This statement from St Petersburg was reinforced on Saturday, when the 28 EU Foreign Ministers unanimously condemned the chemical weapons war crime and called for a strong response that demonstrates that there will be no impunity for such crimes.
	I am clear that it was right to advocate a strong response to the indiscriminate gassing of men, women and children in Syria, and to make that case here in the Chamber. At the same time, I understand and respect what this House has said. So Britain will not be part of any military action, but we will continue to press for the strongest possible response, including at the UN. We will also continue to shape more urgent, effective and large-scale humanitarian efforts, and we will work for the peaceful, political settlement that is the only solution to the Syrian conflict. Let me just say a word about each of those three.
	On chemical weapons, we will continue to gather evidence of what happened and make it available so that those responsible can be brought to account. Along with 11 other G20 countries, we have called for the UN fact-finding mission to present its results as soon as possible. We support efforts by the United States and others to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and we will continue to challenge the UN Security Council to overcome the paralysis of the last two and a half years and to fulfil its responsibilities to lead the international response.
	In terms of the humanitarian response, Britain is, I believe, leading the world. This is the refugee crisis of our time. A Syrian becomes a refugee every 15 seconds. That is 240 fleeing during the hour of this statement alone. Inside Syria, 6.8 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance. At the same time, aid convoys simply cannot get through to areas under siege because of the fighting, and most major routes between large populations are too insecure to use.
	So in St Petersburg, I organised a special meeting with the UN Secretary General, the EU, Japan, Turkey, Canada, France, Australia, Italy, Saudi Arabia and America. We agreed to work together through the UN to secure unfettered humanitarian access inside Syria. We agreed to increase the focus of that humanitarian assistance on dealing with the dreadful impact of chemical weapons, including providing medicines and decontamination tents. And we challenged the world to
	make up the financial shortfall for humanitarian aid by the time the United Nations General Assembly meeting takes place later this month. Britain, Canada, Italy and Qatar have made a start with contributions totalling an extra £164 million.
	Syria still needs a political solution, however, and that requires the Syrian opposition to stand up for the millions who want democracy, pluralism and freedom from terror and oppression. So we will continue to assist the moderate Syrian opposition with political support, non-lethal equipment, technical advice and training. The Foreign Secretary convened a meeting with Syrian opposition leaders in London last week to continue this work, and he has discussed all these issues with the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, today. As I discussed with several G20 leaders, including President Putin, Britain will also lead efforts to get both sides to the table to shape a political transition, building on last year’s agreement in Geneva. That is because, as I have said, a political settlement is the only way to a stable, inclusive and democratic Syria.
	Let me turn to the global economy. When I went to my first G20 summit as Prime Minister in Canada three years ago, Britain had the most indebted economy, the most indebted households and the most damaged banking system of any country around the table. We had also fallen out of the top 10 places in the world for the ease of starting a business. I vowed then that this Government would take the tough action necessary to deal with our debts, repair our broken banking system and, most importantly, help to deliver a private sector-led recovery.
	Three years on, that is exactly what we have done. We have cut the deficit by a third, and cut the structural deficit by more than any other G7 country; we have reformed our banks so that they serve the economy, rather than the other way round; and we have delivered that private sector-led recovery, with the OECD forecasting that Britain will be the fastest-growing G7 economy in the fourth quarter of this year and the International Monetary Fund predicting that we will have the strongest growth of any major European economy in 2014.
	This G20 summit recognised our progress and explicitly singled out Britain’s return to growth in the communiqué. More importantly, the G20 has endorsed our priorities for economic recovery. All 20 have signed up to the St Petersburg action plan, which contains all the features of the plan that we have been following in Britain since the coalition Government came into office. In particular, it emphasises the importance of dealing with our debts, the role of monetary policy to support the recovery, and the need for long-term reforms to boost growth and trade, and cut the red tape that too often holds back the business investment and job creation that we need in our country.
	The summit also took forward the agenda that I set at the G8 in Lough Erne on what I call the three Ts: tax, transparency and trade. On tax, the whole G20 adopted the Lough Erne vision of automatic sharing of tax information, with a single global standard to be finalised by February next year. On transparency, the whole G20 is now taking forward international standards on company ownership. This means that companies will know who really owns them and that tax collectors and law enforcers will be able to obtain that information easily, so that people will not be able to avoid taxes by using complicated and fake structures. Britain has led this initiative, and
	let me welcome the progress made by our Crown dependencies and overseas territories, each of which has now published an action plan.
	On the third of the three Ts—trade—we also made some good progress, not just maintaining the commitment to resist protectionist measures, but extending it by a further two years to the end of 2016. This is a vital and hard-fought achievement, which opens the way to more British exports, more orders for British companies and ultimately more British jobs.
	Finally, strong global growth also depends on helping the poorest countries to lift themselves out of poverty, and the G20 welcomed the vision for eliminating world poverty set out in the report from the UN high-level panel that I co-chaired together with the Presidents of Indonesia and Liberia.
	From humanitarian aid in Syria to the plans for growth right across the G20, and from tax, transparency and trade to the fight against global poverty, Britain—now an economy turning the corner—made a leading contribution to this summit. As I said, we may be a small island, but we are great nation, and I commend this motion to the House.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for his characteristically modest statement this afternoon. We can certainly agree that we are a small island, but a great nation—it is just a shame about the Government, Mr Speaker.
	Let us start with the G20 discussions on the global economy. We agree with the importance of trade, tax and transparency, and we welcome the final communiqué recommitting the world’s leading economies to free trade. We also welcome the commitment to strong global growth and the importance of helping the poorest countries to lift themselves out of poverty.
	On the issue of transparency, what is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that other countries follow through on their G8 commitments to introduce a register of real owners of companies and make these public? Can they be extended to the rest of the G20? When is he going to consult on making the register public in the UK?
	On the economy, the Prime Minister mentioned that the communiqué talks about the UK’s return to growth, but he did not mention the rest of what the statement said about the overall economic situation, which was that
	“unemployment, particularly among youth, remains unacceptably high…recovery is too weak, and risks remain tilted to the downside”.
	It goes on to talk of a
	“need for more inclusive growth in many economies”.
	For 1 million young people out of work in Britain and millions more who see their living standards falling, the G20 communiqué is absolutely right. Does this not suggest that, rather than the Chancellor claiming to have saved the economy, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor should be far less complacent and far more focused on how we prevent this from being a recovery just for a few people at the top of our society?
	On Syria, the vast majority of the international community rightly shares the widespread revulsion of all Members of this House at the use of chemical weapons there. Can the Prime Minister update the
	House on the likely timetable for the reporting by the UN weapons inspectors to the UN Security Council, and on whether he expects a further resolution to be tabled at the UNSC?
	On the UK role, we agree that it is right to use all the humanitarian, political and diplomatic means at our disposal to help the Syrian people. Nobody doubts that this is one of the most pressing humanitarian crises the world has seen. For this reason, I welcome the vital extra funding to which this Government committed during the G20 summit. Indeed, in his remarks after the summit, the Prime Minister echoed the remarks of Ban Ki-moon that the relief fund set up by the UN has only 40% of the money it needs. What does the Prime Minister believe are the prospects for other countries to meet their responsibilities, and will he tell us how he believes we can use the UN General Assembly later this month not just to expand humanitarian aid, but to expand the vital humanitarian access to those who need it?
	Let me also ask the Prime Minister about the enormous pressures that the large Syrian refugee populations are placing on neighbouring countries—Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey—which are seeing their populations grow by hundreds of thousands of people. What actions beyond humanitarian aid were agreed at the G20 summit to help those countries? While humanitarian aid is essential, it is insufficient to end the suffering. As the Prime Minister said, the only long-term solution is a political and diplomatic one, to which our energies must be directed.
	On the prospects of a political solution, there will be deep concern about the comments of the joint special representative for Syria, who has said:
	“Geneva II is now in danger”.
	Will the Prime Minister update the House on discussions that took place at the G20 to progress the timetable for the vital Geneva II peace process? Will he also say something about what came out of the Foreign Secretary’s discussion with the Syrian National Coalition regarding its involvement in the Geneva II summit, which is absolutely essential? In the light of the obstacles in the way of Geneva II, will he now back the establishment of a Syria contact group including countries that are sponsoring the Assad regime on one hand and the rebels on the other, with the aim of renewing pressure for a peace process?
	Whatever disagreements were revealed at the G20, attempts must continue to build the strongest possible international coalition in order to ensure that every diplomatic effort is made to end the violence and push for that political solution in Syria. That is ultimately the only way to end the bloodshed and the mounting horrors faced by the wider region. Over the past few months, the Prime Minister has failed to carry the House on the issue of arming the rebels, and again, 10 days ago, he failed to carry the House or the country because people were not willing to go along with a rush to war. However, he will undoubtedly carry the House and the country as he takes the necessary diplomatic, political and humanitarian action that is needed for a long-term solution to alleviate the suffering of the people of Syria.

David Cameron: Let me deal first with the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about Syria. We do not have a date for the inspectors’ report, but we are pushing for an early report. I think that that would be useful. We
	should not overestimate what the inspectors can do, because they are not there to apportion blame but simply to add to the picture of what we already know, which is that a war crime took place.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the prospects of further humanitarian aid between now and the United Nations General Assembly meeting. I think that they are good. The European Union, the United States and others are all seeking to increase their contributions, in the knowledge that at present we are fulfilling only—I think—44% of what the UN has said is necessary. Britain wanted to get the ball rolling, and that is why we ensured that some money was pledged at the meeting in order to get things going in time for the UN General Assembly meeting. As for access to humanitarian aid, if it is necessary to sponsor a UN Security Council resolution, we can consider that in the weeks ahead.
	The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the neighbouring countries: the pressure is immense. The increase in, for example, the Lebanese population is the equivalent of 15 million people coming here to the UK. We are providing aid and support; for instance, we are providing support for the Lebanese armed forces and sending to Jordan specific pieces of equipment that it has requested.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what was discussed about Geneva II at the G20. In the margins of the dinner that took place, there was a general debate about Syria. Obviously there is enthusiasm for getting the process going, and I think it encouraging that in spite of the different positions that countries took on the immediate chemical weapons crisis, the support for a Geneva process is very strong. He also asked about the opposition. They are, of course, in favour of political transition and the steps that are necessary.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked again about the issue of a contact group, neighbouring countries and the role of, I suspect, Iran. Let me remind the House that Iran has not yet signed up to the principles in Geneva I. I think it is important for people to remember that.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the economy, and specifically about transparency. He asked about the follow-up from the G8 and the G20. All the G8 countries agreed to have action plans on beneficial ownership in place, and they are all doing that. The G20 has now endorsed the overall approach on transparency, an issue that the G20 had never really considered properly before. We will be consulting shortly on whether to make a register of beneficial ownership public.
	The right hon. Gentleman went on to make a few remarks about the economy. He said that the recovery that was taking place in the UK was simply for the few. I would say: what about the 1.3 million private sector jobs? What about the fact that there are almost a million extra people in work? What about all the small businesses that are being set up? What about all those people who are in apprenticeships? The fact is that under this Government, growth is up, exports are up and manufacturing is up. What is down and out is his economic policy and reputation.

Menzies Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that quite the most harrowing aspect of the humanitarian crisis is the impact on
	children? When he goes to the General Assembly of the United Nations in a few weeks’ time, will he put the alleviation of the suffering of the children of Syria at the top of his priorities?

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to raise this point. When you visit one of the refugee camps, as I have, in Jordan and see the children being taught in enormous temporary classrooms under canvas in tents, you realise that their whole childhood, in some cases, will be spent in these camps. We have to alleviate their suffering and we have to help them, but above all we need a political solution as well.

Jack Straw: May I ask the Prime Minister about the tax and transparency conclusions of the G20? They are welcome, but does he agree that so long as Austria and Luxembourg refuse even to sign up to the EU tax guidelines, the work of the G20, welcome as it is, will be undermined from within the EU itself?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. For many years, Luxembourg and Austria have held up progress on this issue. They have often tried to get round that by pointing to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies of the UK, which have now put their house in order, so we can turn back to Austria and Luxembourg. They are under a huge amount of pressure, because the agenda of tax and transparency is growing fast. They have made some moves in the European Union, but we need to do more.

Richard Ottaway: The Russians have been stalling for some time on Geneva II peace talks. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is revealing that faced with the threat of military action, Russia is now calling for diplomatic negotiations? Far more importantly, the BBC is reporting that the Russians are saying that the Syrians are now prepared to attend such talks. Can he confirm the accuracy of that report?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right that minds have become much more focused in recent months. There is an argument, which the Russians make, that the Syrian regime would be content to attend talks, but it is very important that we have some things set out about what those talks aim to achieve. In order to have proper transition, there is a need to know what we are going to get out of those talks. We need to know who is going to take part and who could be part of a transitional Government before those talks begin. Those issues are as important as an in-principle agreement to turn up.

Peter Hain: Can I take it from the Prime Minister’s statement that he now agrees that the Syrian civil war can only be ended not by military action but by a negotiated settlement, however difficult, involving the Iranians, the Russians and, yes, Assad too? Will he use his influence with the opposition forces, which have so far been unwilling to come to such a negotiation, to say that they must have ceasefires locally and access to humanitarian relief, and nominate people who will serve as Ministers alongside existing Government Ministers in a Government of transition to prepare for elections?

David Cameron: We would certainly encourage all parties to take part in the Geneva II talks when a date is set and they get moving. It is obviously in all our
	interests to see that political process work. The only point that I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that at the same time it is absolutely right for the British Government and other like-minded Governments to stand up for the millions of people in Syria who want a future free from terror—a future free from Assad. We need to make sure that there is a Syrian opposition who are strong enough, both on the ground as well as diplomatically and politically, to do that.

Margot James: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the lead that he has taken on the humanitarian effort in Syria and neighbouring countries. Is he aware that Save the Children is struggling to get aid to people suffering in Government-controlled parts of Syria, and what, if any, reaction was there from Russia to this despicable state of affairs?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely key point. Having the available resources is part of the solution, but it is no good unless we can get the aid to the 6 million people in Syria who need it, which requires access. As I have said, if that requires us to go to the UN and seek a Security Council resolution, that is an option that we can undertake. The Russians say that they want to see this aid go through, but we need them to put pressure on the regime to make sure that access is granted.

Bob Ainsworth: On the day of the recall, it was the will of the House, surely, that the issue of Syria go to a full United Nations examination, rather than an early military intervention. Why has that not been the emphasis of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary since? The Prime Minister appears, while saying that we will not be a participant, to continue to urge the Americans to get on with it?

David Cameron: The motion that we put before the House spoke specifically of there being a UN vote—a UN process—and not then some sort of rush, as the right hon. Gentleman likes to say, to military action. It specifically mentioned that there would have to be another vote, but he voted against that motion. It did say that there would be another vote, but the point he makes is important. Of course we always favour taking things to the United Nations, but in the end we have to make a decision in this House and the Opposition have to make a decision too: do we think it is right to confront those who use chemical weapons? I think it is.

John Redwood: I read reports that the Prime Minister had a very welcome meeting with the German Chancellor to discuss member states of the EU having more control over economic migration and benefit systems. Is this true, and is there any news about the timetable for this welcome work?

David Cameron: I have many discussions with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor. At the G20, most of our discussions were about Syria rather than about reform of the European Union, but we have had good discussions about the reform of the European Union. The stance that the German Government have taken is very helpful and I will continue to discuss that with her.

Glenda Jackson: Surely it is time to obtain unfettered access in Syria and for the international community to bite the bullet and start speaking positively with Iran? On humanitarian aid, with the honourable exception of Kuwait and Qatar, some of the richest countries in the world—the Gulf states—have markedly failed to step up to the plate. Given that the Government are continually saying that those countries are our friends and allies, will the Prime Minister use his best offices to encourage them to put their hands into their exceptionally deep pockets?

David Cameron: To be fair to Gulf countries, we can add to Qatar and Kuwait, which have been generous donors, Saudi Arabia, which has given $345 million. We are leading by example and we encourage all countries to step up to the plate and help to fill in the shortage of money. On the Opposition’s seeming obsession with Iran, of course we should strive for good, strong, positive relations with all countries around the world and we do, but I ask the Opposition to remember that Iran has not signed up to the Geneva peace principles. Also, it is currently funding, helping, supporting and arming Assad.

Nicholas Soames: Given that the core purpose of the G20 is the global economy, will the Prime Minister confirm that the agenda for global free trade is of extreme and first importance at this time, and that he will work within the G20 to promote that agenda beyond 2016?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. He is absolutely right. One of the important aims of the G20 is to maintain clear rules for the success of the global economy. Nothing is more important on that front than maintaining free trade. The G20 has had a prohibition year after year on further protectionist measures, and this time we managed to push that from 2014 out to 2016. The next G20 chair will be Australia. I am sure the House will want to welcome the election of Tony Abbott, and I am sure Prime Minister Abbott will want to lead the charge for free trade.

Dennis Skinner: Is it not a bit premature to be talking about the real recovery? Does the Prime Minister not realise that that is insulting to those 4 million people who do not have a full-time job, all those people on zero-hour contracts, and those people without money who are borrowing from Wonga, which is lending more money than many of his beloved banks? This Government would not recognise the truth if it was sprayed on their collective eyeballs.

David Cameron: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot welcome the 1.3 million extra private sector jobs, the fact that almost a million more people are in work, and the record number of small businesses. If he is so against zero-hour contracts, he might want to have a word with all the Labour councils that currently provide them.

Lorely Burt: This country has contributed more in humanitarian aid to Syria than the rest of Europe put together, and in the world is second only to America. I am glad to learn that the Prime Minister has had some success in persuading other G20 countries to step up to the plate. Can he estimate what the shortfall will still be once those commitments have been made?

David Cameron: To be fair to the European Union as a whole, it is the largest donor, with over $1.1 billion; the USA is next, with $1 billion. We are the second largest bilateral national donor. UN appeals are currently only 44% funded, so even with the extra money that was pledged at St Petersburg we are still about that amount short.

Kate Hoey: Among the G20, was there any discussion about or condemnation of some of the terrible atrocities carried out by the rebels in different parts of Syria, particularly at the weekend, where Christians were thrown out of areas that had just been taken over by the rebels, or is everyone just obsessed with Assad?

David Cameron: There was a very robust discussion at the G20 dinner of the Syrian situation, and many people raised atrocities carried out by the opposition. Let me put on the record that an atrocity is an atrocity. It is as serious if carried out by one side or the other side. As I said in the debate, if the opposition was responsible for such large scale chemical weapon use, I would be condemning it from the Dispatch Box and urging others to take action. This was discussed, but we should be focused on the millions of Syrians who want a free and democratic future, so we should support those parts of the opposition, and the Syrian National Council does support those people—those people who speak up for them.

Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend has rightly taken a lead in calling for unfettered humanitarian access to Syria. When does he anticipate it will be possible for the United Nations to agree a resolution to give effect to unfettered humanitarian access, and can he think of any justifiable reason why any country, either at the General Assembly or on the Security Council, could possibly oppose a motion to give effect to unfettered humanitarian access to Syria?

David Cameron: I would very much hope that countries would not oppose such a motion. Baroness Amos gave an extremely clear message when she visited the region recently. She set out the specific things that needed to change for proper access to take place. Let us see how the authorities in Syria or on the borders respond to her very clear message, and if there is no success we will have to look at the next action, which, as I said, could conceivably be a Security Council resolution.

Chris Bryant: I congratulate the Prime Minister on raising LGBT rights with Vladimir Putin —that must have been an interesting conversation. We are coming up to the fourth anniversary of the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, who was working for a British bank, and far from the Russians pursuing those who murdered him, they have pursued him in the courts in a posthumous trial, which is preposterous. Did the Prime Minister make it clear to Putin that we object to this, and that the people who were involved in Magnitsky’s murder and the corruption that he unveiled are not welcome in this country? If he did not make that clear last weekend, will he make it clear now?

David Cameron: I certainly commend the hon. Gentleman for his consistency in raising these cases with me. I hope that he will commend my consistency—

Chris Bryant: I did.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman did.
	—in raising these cases with the Russian President. On this occasion, we did have a discussion about lesbian and gay rights in Russia and the concerns that many people in this country, including me, have about the lack of freedoms and about potential discrimination against lesbian and gay people in Russia. On this occasion, we did not raise all of the other cases, many of which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned in the past, but I believe that the British-Russian relationship is strong enough to mention all these problems and issues, but at the same time to recognise that it is in both our countries’ interests to have a good and strong bilateral relationship. That is what I hope to achieve.

John Baron: The Prime Minister is absolutely right to talk about a political settlement, but I urge him to go the extra diplomatic mile. It is precisely because we do not agree with the Iranians and that they are participants in this conflict that we need to engage them in any forthcoming peace talks. Will he update the House on the extent to which our reluctance to engage with the Iranians is matched by that of other countries within the G20?

David Cameron: As I explained to the House during last week’s Prime Minister’s questions, we have effectively reached out to the Iranian Government after the recent elections, and I have written to President Rouhani, so we are prepared to start trying to have a relationship with them. My hon. Friend talks about the reluctance of some countries, but there is a slight holdback on our behalf because we still really have not had proper redress for the fact that they smashed up our embassy and residence. So we do have to enter these talks and discussions with a clear head. But my hon. Friend is right to say that a long-term peace solution for Syria has to involve everybody, including all the neighbours. No one for a minute denies that, but we have to get the process going in the right way.

Ben Bradshaw: Why, when 492 out of 577 Members of this House supported, or did not rule out, the potential use of force in Syria, has the Prime Minister been so categorical in ruling it out, including refusing even to contemplate bringing the matter back to the House, whatever the circumstances?

David Cameron: The figures the right hon. Gentleman gives are interesting. The point I would make is that I put into the Government motion the fact that we should listen to the weapons inspectors, have a process at the United Nations and have a second vote before action. I included everything that his Front Benchers wanted—every single thing—so the fact that they did not vote for it shows me that they are not serious about the issue; they are serious about political positioning. As Prime Minister, it is very difficult to deal with that. That is why I believe the House spoke quite clearly.

James Paice: In the discussions, did the Prime Minister get the impression that President Putin was speaking as a mouthpiece and defender of the Assad regime, or that he was prepared
	to use Russia’s immense power and influence over Assad to persuade him to come to the table and enter into serious negotiations for transition?

David Cameron: From all my discussions with President Putin—not just at St Petersburg, but at Sochi, No. 10 Downing street and the G8 summit at Lough Erne —I believe that he wants to see a stable Syria and a stable middle east. He is very concerned about instability and terrorism. We have a profound disagreement about the role the opposition could play and, obviously, about what happened with the chemical weapons, but there is some long-term commonality of purpose: wanting a peaceful and stable Syria for the future. That is what we have to work with.

Frank Roy: When the Prime Minister discussed the Syrian refugee camps, was there any agreement that all leaders should visit them to see for themselves the unfolding horrors?

David Cameron: There was not an agreement on that front, but certainly those of us who have been to the camps referred to them, and a number of other leaders made exactly that point too.

Rory Stewart: I congratulate the Prime Minister on ensuring that the vote does not mean that we are somehow abandoning our moral obligation to the Syrian people. I encourage him to ensure that Britain now takes the lead in developing and expanding international conventions on chemical weapons, encouraging emerging countries, such as Brazil and India, to play a more vocal role, and thus protecting not just the Syrian people, but other populations worldwide.

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for what he says. I think that he is absolutely right that these conventions, and ensuring that everyone lives up to them, are directly in the British interest. If any good could come of these ghastly events, it is to wake the world up again to the importance of rules against the use of chemical weapons and to encourage more countries to take them seriously.

Jonathan Edwards: There was an interesting article in The New York Times over the weekend outlining how the Assad regime had amassed its chemical weapon arsenal. Central to the strategy has been the purchase of precursor chemicals from various states around the world. During the G20 summit, did the Prime Minister make the case for global action to limit the export of those chemicals to despotic regimes, and will he be investigating why his Government awarded licences to the Assad regime before and after the outbreak of the civil war in Syria?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about precursor chemicals. In this country we have a very strict licensing regime for the export of those sorts of chemicals, and on this occasion it worked effectively. When the arms ban on Syria was brought in, we were able to revoke those licenses, so from what I have seen to date our system worked well.

Edward Garnier: Are international banking and other financial sanctions in place to prevent the Assad regime from acquiring further
	weapons of mass destruction or “ordinary” weapons? If there is none, is that not something we should be thinking about?

David Cameron: My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. There are obviously international agreements made about not selling arms to Syria, but tragically the regime has been able to get hold of weapons, not least from the Russians and the Iranians, and that is one of the problems we face today.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the announcement of additional humanitarian aid for the Syrian refugees. Was there any discussion at the G20 about the situation in Yemen? Since the Prime Minister appeared at the Dispatch Box to discuss Syria, there has been an attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister of Yemen. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and Ministers have done a great deal of work to have face time with the Yemeni authorities. We must not allow Yemen to slide into civil war because our focus is on Syria.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes important points about a country that has deep problems, and it is in our interests that it resolves them and that we secure a stable Yemen. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be chairing the Friends of Yemen group in New York in a couple of weeks’ time. Britain continues to engage diplomatically, and in terms of humanitarian aid and advice, with the Yemeni Government.

Philip Hollobone: In the margins of the G20, did the Prime Minister manage to collar the representative from Spain to have a word about Gibraltar and the representative from Argentina to have a word about the Falklands, and make it clear to both that those territories are British and will remain so?

David Cameron: I did not need to have those two meetings because I do not think the President of Argentina or Prime Minister of Spain are in any doubt about my views.
	Specifically on Gibraltar, I am sure that everyone in the House will want to welcome the fact that it will be Gibraltar national day tomorrow; I know that a number of colleagues will be there to celebrate 300 years of great relations between Britain and Gibraltar and the fact that we share a sovereign and a future together. On the issue of Gibraltar, I did meet the Spanish Prime Minister to try to look at issues where we can try to de-escalate the war of words that has taken place. We have not made any progress, but we should not only continue to defend absolutely to the hilt Gibraltar’s right to decide its own future; we also want to see good and strong relations in the region as well.

Gisela Stuart: The Prime Minister’s narrative seemed to suggest that the two motions before the House over Syria were broadly the same. In the interests of clarity, will he confirm that there was no reference to a vote in the Security Council in the Government’s motion, in stark contrast to the Opposition motion?

David Cameron: I am very happy to read the hon. Lady the Government motion. It said this:
	“Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing”—
	from the weapons inspectors—
	“and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken”.
	The fact is that Opposition Front Benchers are wriggling and quibbling because they know they had a choice. They could have done the difficult thing and the right thing for the country; instead, they chose the easy and simple thing that was politically convenient. They have to live with the consequences.

Robert Buckland: Was there an opportunity at the summit to discuss the emerging evidence that sexual violence has been used as a weapon of war in Syria?

David Cameron: Many of the issues around the appalling nature of the Syrian conflict were raised. The Foreign Secretary has taken international leadership on the issue that my hon. Friend speaks about, to say how unacceptable the use of sexual violence is as a conflict weapon.

Jeremy Corbyn: During their meetings with President Obama and Secretary Kerry, did the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary have an opportunity to say to Secretary Kerry, “Stop spending all your energies flying desperately around Europe and north Africa looking for allies in a war that nobody wants. Instead, put them into bringing about a diplomatic peaceful solution that must include Iran, Russia and all the neighbouring countries, most of whom do not support a war anyway”?

David Cameron: I would make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is hard to think of anyone who has made greater efforts than Senator Kerry to try to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Syrian crisis. He has worked incredibly hard to do that. He knows something else—if chemical weapons are used on that scale and the Americans have drawn a red line, not to act would send an appalling message to the world.
	I also pick up the hon. Gentleman on another point. This whole language of saying “start a war” is put about by some to try to paint the American or other positions into something like Iraq. This is not about starting a war; it is about responding to the appalling use of chemical weapons. When we see on our television screens children being gassed by chemical weapons, that is the outrage that we should feel.

Steven Baker: I very much welcome the strength of the moral stance that my right hon. Friend has taken on the issue of chemical weapons use in Syria. I was glad that Pope Francis made an intervention on world leaders calling for peace; it is not the first time that, as a member of a different denomination, I have been of one mind with the Pope. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Pontiff’s intervention? Just as it is idealistic, it must surely, ultimately give us the route to a peaceful and lasting settlement.

David Cameron: We should always listen to and respect faith leaders when they make these statements, and they should always make us consider and think about the consequences of actions, but we also, as politicians, have to think of the consequences of non-action and try to be guided by what the outcomes will be if we either act or do not act. Examining the morality of those decisions will provide us with the best answer.

Joan Walley: Apart from his comments on Syria and on growth, the Prime Minister singled out action on the three Ts—trade, tax and transparency—but why was there no mention of the three Es: environment, clean energy and energy efficiency? What further action will be taken to make sure that there is a phasing out of fossil fuels?

David Cameron: Those issues are addressed in the summit communiqué, which points to some progress on important areas such as climate change. Also, the high-level panel that I chaired has at its heart the idea of sustainable development being the way that we increase the world’s resources. As I say, the focus of the meeting was largely around the rules of the global economy, but if the hon. Lady looks at the communiqué, she will see that there is further progress on the issues she raises.

Julian Brazier: I strongly support my right hon. Friend’s announcement of more money for humanitarian aid in Lebanon and Jordan and assistance to the armed forces there, who are holding an increasingly fragile ring. May I urge him to consider, as a small part of that assistance, providing more places on an affordable basis at Sandhurst and the staff colleges?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good suggestion with which I have a huge amount of sympathy. Our staff colleges for the Royal Navy, the RAF and the British Army are some of the greatest assets we have in our country. Many other countries want to send young men to train in them, and we should make sure that we put them to best use.

Paul Flynn: Is the Prime Minister proud to be the first Prime Minister since the Vietnam war to present a wholly independent British foreign policy? Will he, in future, refrain from trying to make our country punch above our weight militarily, which has resulted in Iraq and Helmand and in our spending beyond our interests and dying beyond our responsibilities?

David Cameron: I just do not share the hon. Gentleman’s world view. I think it is good that Britain, with a brilliant diplomatic network and with fantastic armed forces, is able to punch above our weight in the world. Why? Not for any sort of vanity project or for any particular view of how the world ought to look, but because it is in our national interests. We are a trading nation. We have British people living in countries all over the world. It matters to us whether the middle east is stable and whether markets are open in China. So punching above our weight is exactly what we should aim to do, not, as I say, for some grand role in the world, but because it is in the interests of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine.

Nadhim Zahawi: In the Syria debate I and many colleagues attempted to remind the House and the Leader of the Opposition of the importance of unity in this place and the damage done to our national interest by playing party politics. Did my right hon. Friend receive any questions from our allies as to the curious position of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition?

David Cameron: I did have a few questions about what happened in the House of Commons, but some manoeuvres are very difficult and get lost in translation.

Albert Owen: I genuinely welcome the fact that the United Kingdom is playing a lead role in humanitarian aid in Syria. Have the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary had specific talks on practical steps to set up humanitarian corridors? Will he indicate the time scales for the United Nations to sanction this, because we want to see more medicines and medics, not mercenaries, in Syria?

David Cameron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Let me be clear about humanitarian access as opposed to humanitarian corridors. Humanitarian corridors might require, according to some, wide-scale military action to bring them about, so that is not under consideration. What is under consideration is what Baroness Amos set out, with her role at the UN, about what is necessary to get aid to the Syrians who are in need. That is about reducing border checks, reducing bureaucracy, making sure that there can be pauses in the fighting, and making sure that major cities can be accessed. Those are the things that need to be put in place, and that is what we are putting the pressure on for. As I say, if we have to go to the UN for further action, we will.

David Nuttall: Given that our country is presently having to borrow the money required to meet the arbitrary target of spending 0.7% of our GDP on international aid each year, was my right hon. Friend able to discover when the other members of the G20 plan to meet their target?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that Britain is alone among G20 countries in meeting its aid promises. I see that as a source of national pride rather than of national embarrassment. We made a promise to the poorest of the world and we have kept it. If we look at the argument in a different way, I would argue that if we care about getting things done in the world that are in Britain’s interests as well as those of the poorest, keeping such a promise and using our aid budget to demonstrate that Britain can get things done is good from that point of view, too.

Fiona O'Donnell: All 10 tax havens among the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies committed at the G8 to sign the multilateral convention on mutual and administrative assistance in tax matters. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the timetable is in place yet and, if so, how many have signed?

David Cameron: They all agreed to take the necessary action on tax exchange with the UK, international tax co-operation and beneficial ownership, all of which
	was set out at the meeting I had with them. I cannot recall the exact timetable off the top of my head, but I will make this point: I do not think it is fair any longer to refer to any of the overseas territories or Crown dependencies as tax havens. They have taken action to make sure that they have fair and open tax systems. It is very important that our focus should now shift to those territories and countries that really are tax havens. The Crown dependencies and overseas territories, which matter so much—quite rightly—to the British people and Members have taken the necessary action and should get the backing for it.

Peter Bone: Parliamentarians on both sides of the House will be extremely grateful to the Prime Minister for recalling Parliament and giving Members a vote on the Syrian question. In my opinion, the last two weeks have been the Prime Minister’s finest hour so far. Does he share my concern that, given that the Opposition’s amendment was so close to the Government’s motion, the Leader of the Opposition, who is a very honourable man, had not the statesmanship to put his disagreements aside and support the Prime Minister?

David Cameron: The Leader of the Opposition will have to give his own explanation. All I can say is that what I tried to do was put a motion before the House that included all the issues that had been raised with me. I wanted to bring the House together. The Opposition chose not to do that. I think that is a matter of regret, but the Leader of the Opposition will have to offer his own explanation.

Mark Hendrick: Given President Hollande’s recent indication, if the UN Security Council votes in favour of military action, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he has ruled out giving the House a vote on whether to go along with such a decision?

David Cameron: As I have said, I have absolutely no plans to bring a vote back to the House of Commons about British participation in military action. I have explained what was in our motion with regard to the UN Security Council, but let me make this point: so far, we have been frustrated for two and a half years, even with regard to motions in the Security Council that repeat the language of, for instance, Loch Erne on the need for talks and dialogue and everything else. The idea that there is some magical way of proceeding without the Russians delivering a veto is, I think, very unlikely.

David Burrowes: On the economy, did the Prime Minister find any support in the G20 for changing the course of the recovery and pursuing plan B?

David Cameron: I can confidently say that I do not think the idea of plan B was raised at any time during this meeting. It is interesting that Britain, Japan and America were all singled out as delivering stronger growth than expected and that is welcome for the world economy.

Diane Abbott: Does the Prime Minister accept that, although the vast majority of the British public want him to
	strain every sinew in humanitarian and diplomatic effort, they do not support military intervention in Syria and therefore welcome his correct judgment that the House of Commons has spoken and that he will not be bring the matter back for a second vote?

David Cameron: As I have said, I have absolutely no intention of bringing the matter back in terms of British military action. I think that what happened in the debate is that a lot of Members of Parliament had listened to their constituents who were hugely concerned about the situation in Syria. Clearly, the British public are deeply sceptical about getting more involved in the Syrian conflict, but as politicians I think we all have a responsibility to try to separate from that, for a moment, the issue of chemical weapons and point out the dangers of not upholding that international taboo. Inevitably, however, all these subjects get meshed together.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK Government have provided more than £400 million of humanitarian and non-lethal aid in response to the Syrian crisis, and that that is the greatest level of support that has been provided to a humanitarian crisis in the history of our admittedly small but great nation?

David Cameron: I believe that that is the largest amount that we have contributed in response to a humanitarian crisis, but then this is the largest humanitarian crisis since Rwanda and it has been unfolding over a longer period. One of the remarkable and terrifying things about this humanitarian emergency is that, although it looked dreadful a year and a half ago, it has got much worse over the subsequent period. With things such as the use of chemical weapons, it is likely that the number of people fleeing their homes and needing help will only go up.

Geraint Davies: On tax and transparency, the Prime Minister said that people should not avoid tax by using complex structures. How is it that Vodafone has received £53 billion in the biggest share sale this century and not paid a penny in corporation tax? What is he going to do about that?

David Cameron: Obviously, specific cases have to be examined between the Inland Revenue and the company concerned. We are putting in place not only greater transparency, but an agreement on the sharing of tax information between countries so that it is more difficult for companies—I am not saying that Vodafone did this, because I do not know all the details—to put in place complex proceedings to avoid tax. I think that that is important.

Robert Halfon: I thank the Prime Minister for the morality that he has shown with regard to Syria. I am proud of our aid programme in that country. Was there any discussion at the summit of the effect of the conflict on the rising cost of oil? Will there be any action from Governments to mitigate the effect of the rising cost of oil on the public around the world?

David Cameron: I do not believe that the conflict has had that big an impact on oil prices so far. We look at the situation that people are facing at the petrol
	pump all the time. Under my hon. Friend’s perpetual, aggressive and entirely correct lobbying, we have taken action to keep prices down. We will obviously keep that issue under review.

Diana Johnson: I am very proud that the UK is taking a lead on humanitarian aid. Will the Prime Minister say whether Russia is contributing its fair share of humanitarian aid?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes a good point. Looking at the donor table, the EU is the largest contributor, Britain and America are the two largest country contributors, and the rest of the top 10 reads Saudi Arabia, Germany, Canada, Qatar, Japan, Australia, Italy and France. I cannot see Russia on the table, but perhaps I could write to her when I get hold of the number.

Martin Horwood: I have heard the answers that the Prime Minister has given, but will he tell the House whether the prospect or the opportunity of drawing Iran into a regional approach to peace in Syria was discussed at the G20, especially given the notably less belligerent and partisan remarks recently attributed to President Rouhani and former President Rafsanjani?

David Cameron: Of course the Syrian issue was discussed, but the principal avenue of discussion was chemical weapons and the right response to their use. There were countries that supported the US motion and countries that did not. There was not an extensive discussion about how the Geneva II process could work, but all the countries around the table are broadly supportive of it.

Pete Wishart: The Prime Minister has said that he will respect the view of the House on military action. All of us are eternally grateful for that. However, does he not feel bound by this House, given that this is a parliamentary democracy? Will he assure me and the rest of the nation that he will do nothing to compromise the very clear view of this House with respect to military action?

David Cameron: I am accountable to this House. The motion that I put to the House was defeated and the Leader of the Opposition’s motion was defeated. My interpretation of the House’s view was that British military action clearly was not favoured. As I have said, I respect that outcome.

Julian Smith: The Prime Minister has led the way in hustling other world leaders for aid pledges to Syria. I welcome the £160 million that was announced on Friday. However, China and Russia are paying peanuts towards the humanitarian effort. What prospect is there of persuading them to do more?

David Cameron: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary will be very persuasive in New York at bashing heads together and getting people to contribute. Everyone can see the tragedy unfolding on their television screens, and even where there is such deep disagreement between Britain and Russia, for example, or Britain and China, about
	the right steps to take on the Syrian crisis, the one area of agreement is the need for humanitarian aid, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will be successful.

Luciana Berger: The Prime Minister has outlined the British Government’s contribution to much-needed humanitarian assistance in Syria. Will he please say what additional support is being given to those countries surrounding Syria that are affected by the appalling refugee crisis?

David Cameron: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. In some cases it is money—we have put in money for humanitarian aid to Lebanon, Jordan, and some limited resources to Turkey. As I said, however, it has also been about directly providing the Jordanians with specific pieces of equipment they have asked for. We have helped the Lebanese army, given quite a lot of advice, and we stand ready to help as we can. In the long term, it is untenable for countries such as Lebanon to see an increase of, effectively, a quarter in their population. We need a solution to the crisis so that people can go home.

Guy Opperman: On the economy, the Prime Minister spoke of repairing our broken banking system. Does he agree that the creation and expansion of regional and local banks are key reforms of this Government that will provide finance for small and medium-sized enterprises, address payday lending problems, and reinvigorate local community banking?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As well as looking at the big banks and how we nurse them back to health—some good progress has been made there—we also need to encourage what are called “challenger” banks, and new lenders into the British economy. Those can be crowdsource funders as well as new start-up banks, or businesses such as supermarkets that are getting into banking. We should be encouraging all those things for a more competitive sector.

Bill Esterson: Staying with the economy, those who moved their bonuses to April to take advantage of the cut in the top rate of tax undoubtedly feel that there has been a recovery. Does the Prime Minister understand that for people on zero-hours contracts, or wages that are £1,500 lower than they were three years ago, there has been no recovery? Where is the good news from the G20 for the vast majority of ordinary people in this country?

David Cameron: Of course I understand that times have been incredibly tough for people, many of whom have not seen an increase in their wages yet they have seen prices rising. The key is that if we want a proper recovery in living standards, we have to see three things: a growing economy, which we now have; reductions in personal tax rates, which we are doing by lifting the allowance; and we must keep inflation under control so that we get low interest rates and low mortgage rates. All three of those things are happening under this Government, but if we had listened to the Labour party, I do not think that any of them would be happening.

Gavin Williamson: What discussions did my right hon. Friend have at the G20 to crack down on tax avoidance by trade unions?

David Cameron: When I was at the G20 I was not aware that Britain’s leading trade unions were dodging their taxes, as well as all the other things that they do, and I got home from the G20 to read that in the Sunday newspapers. I am sure that when the Leader of the Opposition goes to address the brothers in Bournemouth —he always seems to have some problems with brothers—he will sort it all out.

Stephen McCabe: Given the Prime Minister’s very encouraging interpretation of the St Petersburg action plan, what does he think the senior official who briefed Reuters could have meant when he said that there was no agreement on post-2016 targets, and that numbers merely reflected the best guess for future budgets?

David Cameron: If the hon. Gentleman looks at what the G20 agreed in terms of 2016 targets, the target it set was that of no new protectionist measures until 2016. That was a success for the G20.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Prime Minister agree that the tax agreements that were entered into are not just a milestone against international tax avoidance, but send a clear message to any tax-dodging company, trade union or political party in this country that it is time for it to face up to its responsibilities and pay a fair share of tax?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are trying to deal with tax evasion, which is illegal, and that will be helped by these international agreements and by greater transparency of beneficial ownership. We are also trying to deal with aggressive tax avoidance where people go to huge measures not to pay their taxes. That includes the Labour donor whom we discussed a lot before the summer recess. I think he has still not had his money paid back, although I am sure they will get round to it.

Tom Blenkinsop: Following the G20, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has today said that he has called on President Assad to hand over his chemical weapons to the international community so that it can be responsible for their destruction. Does the Prime Minister support that, and if he does, is he willing to work with countries such as Russia, Iran and the US to make it happen?

David Cameron: I only recently heard that announcement. If that were to be the case, it would be hugely welcome. If Syria were to put its chemical weapons beyond use under international supervision, that would clearly be a big step forward and should be encouraged. We must be careful to ensure that this is not a distraction tactic to discuss something other than the problem on the table, but if it is a genuine offer, it should be genuinely looked at.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the excellent work that the Prime Minister is doing on Syria. Every single hon. Member has welcomed
	the work of the UN inspectors, but will he remind the House how they got into Syria? The G8 summit, which he chaired, made Russia agree to UN inspectors going into Syria for the first time. The Russians would not agree to that previously, so that was an acutely significant moment.

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. It was a breakthrough at Lough Erne to get that unfettered access for inspectors. However, we must remember that they are not able to point the finger of blame. All they can do is build additional evidence. I hope they are successful and that they make their report, and that the report adds to the already bleak picture we can see.

William Bain: The leaders’ declaration is right to say that too many people are not sharing in any global economic recovery. Given that, under this Government, one in five people in work earn less than the living wage, and that we have fifth-worst levels of low pay found anywhere in the OECD, what advice did the Prime Minister take at the G20 on his wages policy?

David Cameron: It is perfectly obvious to see what the Opposition want to do—they want to change the question. First they said there would not be a recovery, but there is now growth in our economy. They then said there will not be any more jobs and predicted millions more unemployed, but there are more jobs. Quite understandably, they are changing the argument, but the point is this: if we want rising living standards, as I do, we need a growing economy, we need to cut people’s personal taxes, and we need to keep inflation and mortgage rates down. That is what this Government are delivering.

Stephen Gilbert: Further to the Prime Minister’s answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), will he confirm that British diplomatic staff in Russia will do everything they can to help British lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender men and women who could either be caught up in the rise of homophobia in the country or caught inadvertently by the new anti-gay laws?

David Cameron: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I have said, we had a good discussion on that important issue. I was given certain assurances by President Putin that there would be no discrimination, but I am sure the British embassy will do everything it can to help people.

Sheila Gilmore: Does the Prime Minister accept that Labour’s amendment in the Syria debate included a time limit on parliamentary authority for military action to avoid any open-ended commitment, and that his motion did not?

David Cameron: In the end, the hon. Lady can find whatever wriggling reason she wants not to do the right thing, but the fact is that the Opposition asked for the weapons inspectors to report, which we granted; for
	a proper resolution at the UN, which we granted; and for a second vote, which we also granted. Why did they not vote for the Government’s motion? I will tell the House why: because they wanted to play politics rather than serve the national interest.

Stephen Doughty: The Prime Minister will be aware of concerns expressed by many hon. Members and many of my constituents about the impending closure of, or restrictions on, global money transfer services, largely as a result of changes in US regulation. Was he or the Chancellor able to have conversations with the US Administration and other world leaders on that at the G20? If not, will he commit to having such conversations to try to find a solution?

David Cameron: I was not able to have those discussions, but the hon. Gentleman is entirely right that this is a serious issue for people who want to send remittances back to the countries from which they originally came or where they have relatives. It is an important issue that we need to sort out.

Heidi Alexander: The Prime Minister rightly noted in his statement that the situation in Syria has created the refugee crisis of our time. Is he aware that last week Sweden relaxed its asylum policies for Syrian refugees? What thought has he given to the possibility of the UK doing something similar?

David Cameron: We are not planning to do that. Britain already has a very generous asylum system that operates under the rule of law. People who are genuinely fleeing persecution cannot be returned to those countries, but it is right that people should seek asylum in the first country that they flee to.

Andrew Gwynne: The global economic outlook remains fragile and the Prime Minister mentioned the role of monetary policy to support the recovery. What discussions has he had on the impact on the global economy and on international investment should the world’s leading economies—specifically the USA—move away from their standard monetary policies of providing easy money and low interest rates too soon?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman raises one of the questions that lay behind a lot of the discussions and debates on the global economy. What has happened in American markets recently, with a rise in long-term interest rates, has taken a lot of money out of developing countries and contributed, they would argue, to some instability. A year ago at the G20, the question was rather different. The argument was that because of accommodative monetary policy, the west was trying artificially to reduce its exchange rates. I understand the concerns of India and others. I think what it argues for is the importance of getting the economic fundamentals right, and that is what all countries have to take notice of.

Mr Speaker: I am most grateful to the Prime Minister and to colleagues. Fifty-nine Back Benchers were able to question him in 52 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time. We can do it when we try.

Birth of Prince George of Cambridge

David Cameron: I beg to move,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty offering the congratulations of this House to Her Majesty, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall and Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of Prince George; and signifying to Her Majesty the great pleasure given to the House by this happy event.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the message on the birth of Prince George of Cambridge.

David Cameron: Many generations in the House of Windsor have been welcomed by many generations in this House of Commons, and we are delighted to do so again today. Of course, in centuries past things were slightly different. When a royal birth of this significance took place, the entire Cabinet would assemble at the birthplace and the Home Secretary would actually be in the room at the time of the birth. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says, “Quite right.” I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that this was not seen as appropriate on this occasion.
	The birth of Prince George was a national moment—a time to recognise, once again, what a vital part of our national life the monarchy is. In the past few years we have seen a surge of affection for our royal family, from the royal wedding to the diamond jubilee and coronation celebrations. This summer, millions cheered the news of the royal birth.
	We must remember, however, that this birth has been not just a national event, but, first and foremost, a private and family event. It is right that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been given the space and privacy to get to know their new son. In the coming years they must continue to be allowed that space.
	For now, I know the whole House will join me in congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and in wishing Prince George a long and happy life at the heart of our nation.

Edward Miliband: May I second the motion in the name of the Prime Minister, and associate myself and my party entirely with the sentiments he has expressed? I congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of the new Prince George.
	As the Prime Minister said, there has been an opportunity for the House, over many generations, to express its happiness at the birth of a royal prince or princess. Every new arrival represents the continuity of our royal family, and reminds us of the unique service that our monarchy renders to the British people at home and abroad. As the Prime Minister also said, each occasion reflects the generation in which the prince or princess is born. In 1688, King James II’s son was born with more than 80 witnesses in attendance. I think we can all agree that it is right that times have moved on, and, to coin a phrase, we are pursuing traditional values in a modern setting.
	On this occasion, I think we will all have been struck by the informality and joy of the new royal parents, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Any parent will have recognised the emotions of excitement—and, indeed, a bit of trepidation—about the new world of parenthood into which they were arriving. In their case, with the eyes of the world on them, they carry a heavy sense of responsibility. I am sure I speak for Members the House when I say that they carried it off absolutely brilliantly—as did Prince George, with what was generously interpreted as a first royal wave, when he appeared in front of the cameras. I am sure the House will unite in offering our congratulations to Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh, and to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. We wish the new prince and his parents health, happiness and a long life.

Menzies Campbell: I should like on behalf of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends to endorse completely the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The pleasure and pride of the duke and duchess has been plain for all to see, although there seemed to be a hint of realism about the responsibilities of parenthood when, in the course of a television interview, the duke described his new son as a “bit of a rascal”.
	The birth has given great pleasure, but nowhere has it given more pleasure than in St Andrews and, in particular, St Andrews university, where the duke and duchess first met and where they graduated on the same day. The university is engaged in its 600th anniversary celebrations, which have been much enhanced by the unqualified support for the duke and duchess, but St Andrews is not alone: the whole nation congratulates the duke and duchess and wishes them and their son well.

Angus Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) in supporting the motion. We are marking the very happy news for the Earl and Countess of Strathearn on the birth of Prince George of Cambridge. As we have heard, few places have a stronger connection for them both than St Andrews, where they both attended and met at what is the oldest university in Scotland. That joy is shared across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, as it is in all 16 realms and across the Commonwealth.
	The arrival of baby Prince George is clearly a tremendous joy for the parents and both their families, but for Her Majesty, the birth of Prince George equals the remarkable record of Queen Victoria, who during her lifetime also had three contemporary, following generations of heirs to the throne. Just as much has changed during the reign of our current monarch, much more perhaps will change before Prince George ascends to the throne—one imagines, in the second half of this century. We wish him, his parents and extended families every success and happiness.

Edward Leigh: This is indeed a joyous occasion. It is somewhat bizarre that we are paying tribute to a five-week-old baby who is blissfully
	unaware of all our plaudits, but that is rather fine in many ways. For somebody such as me, with my beliefs, it sums up the virtue of the monarchy.
	This is an opportunity for us to ask ourselves again why the monarch is so popular. Why is something that is, in many people’s view, an essentially irrational institution so popular, when it is clearly not democratic? There are no doubt many clever five-week-old babies—highly intelligent, young Ed Milibands and David Camerons—who could never get the job, but the young prince will one day be our Head of State. I think that is a rather fine thing. We have to ask ourselves why the monarchy is so popular. I think it is mainly because of what the Queen has been doing. She is so popular precisely because she never asked for the job—she never campaigned for it. She just sees her role in terms of duty—not to be popular, but just to do her job well.
	The other thing about the monarchy and what it can teach us is that there are limits to the inevitability of reason and democracy, but the monarchy modernises itself in a way in which the essential structures are always kept. I was reminded of that when I went to Portsmouth the other week and looked at HMS Victory. The ship is seemingly the same as on the day of the battle of Trafalgar, but not many people know that in fact the masts are made of steel and virtually every plank has been changed. In the same way, the monarchy is constantly changing and modernising itself. No doubt the monarchy will be very different indeed when Prince George becomes King, but it will still be essentially the same. That is why it remains enduringly popular.

David Winnick: I have no wish to oppose the motion, and I am sure that we all send our congratulations to those involved as stated in the motion moved by the Prime Minister and supported by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. As we are discussing one child, however, I think that it would be relevant to point out that it should concern the House that at least 3.5 million children in this country are still living in households in which poverty exists after housing costs have been met. I should also mention that, according to the latest available figures, nearly 7 million children in the world die before reaching their fifth birthday, and that two thirds of those deaths could be prevented if modern medical facilities were available. I just hope that by the time the subject of this motion becomes 18—or better still, well before then—it will no longer be necessary for a Member of Parliament to stand up in this House and cite such figures.

Bernard Jenkin: I am so glad that this debate has gone on long enough to allow at least one hon. Member to sound a dissenting voice, because debates in this Chamber would not be complete without a variety of voices being heard. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) has underlined the point that this young child has been born into a family with responsibilities, and that that family would not enjoy the extraordinary support that they do if they did not show the same sincerity and concern for the least fortunate in society that he has demonstrated in his speech.
	It is also worth remembering that this child is going to be a prisoner of public life for his whole life. Even if the monarchy were abolished, he would remain a public figure. In some respects, children born into the royal family are the least fortunate in society. Every one of us in the House chose to be in public life, but he will have no choice. It is an illustration of the extraordinary self-sacrifice of the royal family that they accept their duty with alacrity; that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) an explanation of why the royal family remain so enduringly popular, even though they have had their ups and downs.
	Much has been said about continuity. The constitutional value of the royal family is the uncontroversial continuity provided by the continuation of the monarchy. Other countries look with jealousy at the stability of our system of government and at how it has remained stable through general strikes, world wars and economic depressions while others have strained to remain democratic. This is one of the things that we owe to the continuation of our monarchy, and that is why it is appropriate that a democratic Parliament should choose an occasion such as this to pay tribute to the institution.

Albert Owen: It is a pleasure to add my congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their son, Prince George. In doing so, I shall unashamedly promote my constituency, the beautiful Isle of Anglesey, which provided the first home for the royal couple. Before their wedding, in February 2011, Prince William and the then Miss Middleton undertook their first public engagement together in my constituency, when they launched the Royal National Lifeboat Institution’s new lifeboat, the Hereford Endeavour. That event received worldwide attention through not only BBC Radio Cymru, BBC Radio Wales and various local television channels, but Sky News, CNN and Australia’s Channel 9, among others. All those broadcasters saw the good side of Anglesey, which Prince William and Kate were proud to share. Also, a few days ago, they undertook their first engagement since the birth of Prince George. That, too, was on the Isle of Anglesey, where they set off the Anglesey ultra-marathon, the Ring O’Fire, around the island. Their public engagements have been well documented but, as the Prime Minister said, they have had time as residents of Anglesey to have a private life as well. There has been mutual respect between the royal couple and the people of Anglesey in that regard.
	The Duke of Cambridge coined the term “Anglesonians” to describe the people of Anglesey. We are all Anglesonians now. He promoted the Isle of Anglesey a few weeks ago at the Anglesey show when he said:
	“I know that I speak for Catherine when I say that I have never in my life known somewhere as beautiful and as welcoming as Anglesey. This island had been our first home together, and it will always be an immensely special place for us both. Catherine and I look forward to returning”
	some day. I hope that they will bring Prince George with them. I add my congratulations to them and wish them “Iechyd da” or good health.

David Nuttall: On behalf of all my constituents, I warmly congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their new
	son, Prince George, and wish him a long and happy life. The royal family provide our nation with stability and an example of service and commitment to us all. I know that the new prince and his parents will be given a very warm welcome, should they have occasion to visit Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington.

Kate Hoey: I would like to add my congratulations on the birth of Prince George on behalf of all my constituents, many of whom, because it was so near, stood outside the hospital for many hours. That occasion showed the huge interest of the international press and of people from all around the world. This shows just what a privilege it is to have a monarchy in this country. I am an unashamed monarchist, and I genuinely feel that the stability and continuity of our country have been greatly dependent on the monarchy, even if there have been some ups and downs, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said.
	I was in Northern Ireland when the birth happened. I have just seen in their place someone representing Northern Ireland, but I wanted to say what a wonderful reception the birth received in Northern Ireland, too. In all parts of the United Kingdom, we share in the joy of the parents. Very few of us will be around when Prince George becomes King. A few might hope to be, but I doubt that. We are nevertheless taking part today in a bit of history. That is why I wanted to add my congratulations to the whole royal family.

Lady Hermon: I apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of this debate. I also apologise on behalf of my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party, the Alliance party and the Social and Democratic Labour party. We have not decided to absent ourselves, to a man and a woman, this afternoon. In fact, there is a most unusual meeting taking place: the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is meeting in the Senate Chamber in Stormont. It is good for the people of Northern Ireland to see their MPs, of all parties, in action there. However, I wanted to put on record our very good wishes. As the only Independent MP from Northern Ireland here, it is wonderful to be
	able to speak for those from other parties and to send our congratulations to the wonderful Queen, her wonderful husband and to the parents of Prince George. We are delighted with Prince George’s safe arrival in this world.

David Anderson: Any birth is a joy, and this is a joy for the people of this country. I am particularly happy because a great grandfather in the Duchess’s family was a coal miner in the area where I worked for 20 very happy years. I hope that the inherent spirit and generosity of miners and their care for others will flow through this child’s blood, so that he can play his part, along with whoever takes over from us in this House in years to come, to prevent such things as I heard about on Saturday morning: a 13-year-old girl in my constituency who has just had a spinal operation is sleeping in a camp bed, because of over-overcrowding, in her grandmother’s house. I hope that whoever takes over from us will be able to work together, along with the royal family, to make something like that a thing of the past.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,nemine contradicente,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty offering the congratulations of this House to Her Majesty, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall and Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of Prince George; and signifying to Her Majesty the great pleasure given to the House by this happy event.
	Ordered,
	That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of the House as are of Her Majesty’s most Honourable Privy Council or of Her Majesty’s Household.

Birth of Prince George of Cambridge

Resolved,nemine contradicente,
	That a Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, to offer the congratulations of this House on the birth of Prince George and expressing the warm wishes of the House for his good health and happiness.— (The Prime Minister.)
	Ordered,
	That the said Message be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of the House as are of Her Majesty’s most Honourable Privy Council or of Her Majesty’s Household.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

[Relevant Documents:The Seventh Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, on the Government’s Lobbying Bill, HC 601, and the First Report from the Committee on Standards, on the Government’s Lobbying Bill, HC 638]

[1st Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee

[Dawn Primarolo in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Prohibition on consultant lobbying unless registered

Jon Trickett: I beg to move amendment 2, in line5,leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendment 76.
	Amendment 5, in line8,leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
	Amendment 7, in line12,leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
	Amendment 48, in clause2,page1,line12,leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	‘(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person carries on the business of lobbying if in the course of a business and in return for payment—
	(a) the person makes communications within subsection (3), or advises another person on the making of communications within subsection (3), and
	(b) none of the exceptions in Part 1 of Schedule 1 applies.’.
	Amendment 8, in clause2,page2,line2,leave out ‘on behalf of another person or persons’.
	Government amendment 77.
	Amendment 9, in clause2,page2,line4,leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	‘(b) in return for payment the person advises others how to make communications within subsection (3).
	(c) in return for payment the person arranges or facilitates a formal or informal meeting within subsection (3).’.
	Amendment 161, in clause2,page2,line4,at end insert—
	‘(1A) A person carries on the business of professional lobbying if—
	(a) the person is directly employed by a non-lobbying business to perform the role of making communications within the meaning of subsection (3);
	(b) the person is contracted to perform the role of making communications within the meaning of subsection (3) by a non-lobbying business; or
	(c) in addition to other duties within their business, they make communication within the meaning of subsection (3).’.
	Amendment 52,in schedule 1, page50,line18, leave out paragraph 3.
	Government amendment 91.
	Amendment 17,in schedule 1, page50, line18, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
	Amendment 18,in schedule 1, page50, leave out lines 19 to 24 and insert—
	‘(a) the person is a constituent contacting or communicating with their Member of Parliament;
	(b) the person is making communications solely on his or her own behalf;
	(c) the person is responding to a government consultation exercise;
	(d) the person is responding to an invitation to submit information or evidence to a Parliamentary Select Committee or Public Bill Committee;
	(e) the person is acting in an official capacity on behalf of a government organisation;
	(f) a person is making communications without remuneration;
	(g) the person is responding to or complying with a court order,’.
	Government amendments 92 to 95.
	Amendment 19,in schedule 1, page50,line25, leave out sub-paragraph 3(2) and insert—
	‘A person is carrying on the business of professional lobbying if they are acting—
	(a) on behalf of a client, or
	(b) on behalf of an employer.’.
	Amendment 20,in schedule 1, page50,line30, leave out sub-paragraph 3(3) .
	Amendment 21,in schedule 1, page50,line33, leave out sub-paragraph 3(4) .
	Amendment 22,in schedule 1, page51,line8, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
	Government amendments 96 and 97.
	Amendment 24,in schedule 1, page51,line21, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
	Amendment 25,in schedule 1, page51,line43, leave out paragraph (7).
	Amendment 26, in schedule 1,page52,line10, leave out paragraph (8). Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page52,line16, leave out paragraph (10).
	Amendment 30, in clause3,page2,line35,leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
	Government amendment 98.
	Amendment 32, in clause4,page2,line38,leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
	Amendment 33, in clause4,page3,line12,leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
	Amendment 38, in clause6,page4,line25,leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
	Amendment 39, in clause9,page5,line12,leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
	Government amendment 81.
	Amendment 41, in clause12,page6,line22,leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
	Government amendments 82 to 85.
	New clause 5—Definition of consultant lobbying
	‘(1) In section 1 “consultant lobbying” means activities which are carried out in the course of a business for the purpose of—
	(a) influencing government; or
	(b) advising others how to influence government.
	(2) Activities are to be taken as having the purpose specified in subsection (1) if a reasonable person would assume, having regard to all the circumstances, that the activities were intended to have the effect described in subsection (1)(a) or (b).
	(3) In this section “government” includes, within the United Kingdom—
	(a) central government, devolved government, local government;
	(b) members and staff of either House of Parliament or of a devolved legislature;
	(c) Ministers and officials; and
	(d) public authorities (within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998).
	(4) Subsection (1) does not include—
	(a) anything done in response to or compliance with a court order;
	(b) anything done for the purpose of complying with a requirement under an enactment;
	(c) a public response to an invitation to submit information or evidence;
	(d) a public response to a government consultation exercise;
	(e) a formal response to a public invitation to tender;
	(f) anything done by a person acting in an official capacity on behalf of a government organisation; or
	(g) an individual who makes representations solely on his or her own behalf.
	(5) In subsection (1) “influencing” includes informing, but making information or opinions public (for example, by way of advertisements or attributed articles in a newspaper) is not the provision of lobbying services.
	(6) In this section—
	(a) “business” includes any undertaking, including charitable and not-for-profit undertakings; and
	(b) services provided by or on behalf of an undertaking are provided “in the course of a business”, even if the persons providing the services are acting on a pro bono, volunteer or not-for-profit basis.
	(7) Subsection (1) applies whether a person is acting—
	(a) on behalf of a client;
	(b) on behalf of an employer;
	(c) as a volunteer on behalf of a charitable or other organisation; or
	(d) on the person’s own behalf (subject to subsection (4)(g)); but the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument permit persons who provide lobbying services on behalf of an organisation (in any capacity) to rely on the organisation’s registration.
	(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide that a person does not contravene section 1 by providing lobbying services without being registered, provided that the person becomes registered within a specified period beginning with the first date on which those services were provided.’.
	Amendment 44, title,line2l, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Jon Trickett: Let me welcome you to the Chair, Ms Primarolo, for the start of this very important Committee stage. We all look forward to your wise advice as we proceed with detailed scrutiny of the first part of this absolutely dreadful Bill—a Bill which no single stakeholder of any importance has endorsed. Part 1 is in need of major change, and it is only as a
	result of the unfortunate abbreviation of the time available that we shall not be pressing every single one of our amendments to a vote. We will see how far we get. I personally do not intend to speak for too long, because there are so many important matters to be dealt with this afternoon. I apologise to the Committee for needing to slip out for a few minutes at some stage; I have a long-standing engagement.
	I want to make three points. First, there is a need for a universal register of all lobbyists, to which amendment 2 and further consequential amendments refer. Secondly, we strongly object to the Government’s tabling of amendment 76, for reasons that I shall explain shortly. Thirdly, amendment 9 and amendment 48—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—widen the definition of “lobbyist” to ensure that all activities are properly registered.
	The Government frequently claim to be the most transparent Government in history. That is a large claim. However, when it comes to making a choice between their commitment to transparency and the protection of vested interests, they always come down on the side of vested interests at the cost of transparency. That much is clear from the very first clause of the Bill, which needs to be amended.

Grahame Morris: Earlier this year, a private health care company, Hospital Corporation of America, was awarded a contract to treat NHS brain tumour patients. That happened after the same company had donated £17,000 to the Conservative party. Does my hon. Friend agree that such transactions are the ones that the public want to get to the bottom of, and that the Bill does nothing to achieve that?

Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about the way in which the Bill that became the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was prepared. As we know, the private health industry operated substantially behind the scenes in preparing the ground for that Bill. We also know that the legislation has led to a variety of actions which seem to have introduced an increasing amount of engagement in the NHS by the private sector, but that is not the point that I am addressing this afternoon.
	The Government’s decision to limit the register to consultant lobbyists will lead to a narrowing of the register, because it excludes nearly all the lobbyists who are working professionally in our country today. Indeed, it would deepen the shadows that many people believe fall wherever the industry practises. Our amendments will seek to make the register universal and transparent and make what the lobbyists are doing transparent, by bringing the whole of the professional industry into daylight.

Charlie Elphicke: I am a little puzzled as to the distinction drawn in the hon. Gentleman’s amendments between the terms “consultant” and “professional”. Can he explain the difference?

Jon Trickett: I will explain it, but it is not too difficult to understand. I have met and consulted with representatives of the whole of the industry, and they have told me that only a tiny proportion of the industry are so-called
	consultant lobbyists—third-party lobbyists or, as it were, hired guns. Professional lobbyists who work in-house will not be covered under the definition in the Bill, which is why we feel the use of the term “consultant lobbyist” narrows the Bill’s scope.

Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful explanation. I do not know whether he is aware of these comments made by Cameron Penny, a financial services lobbyist, on ConservativeHome:
	“In a ludicrous reduction in the level of transparency to which I currently submit, the Bill wouldn’t mean I’d have to register as a lobbyist. As an employee who lobbies on behalf of an employer whose business is lobbying; they would have to register, I wouldn’t.”
	I therefore urge Members on both sides of the Committee to support Labour’s amendment, so that we ensure that we establish a lobbying register that includes all lobbyists, not just a very narrow 1%.

Jon Trickett: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I met with all the representative bodies of the lobbying industry only two or three weeks ago, and I asked them how many of their members would have to register under the definition of “consultant lobbyist”. They knew of nobody—not one single person—who would be both a consultant lobbyist and registered under the definition of lobbying in the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jon Trickett: I am going to make some more points on this matter in a few moments, and I may take some interventions then.
	Our amendment would secure a register that includes in-house lobbyists as well as lobbying consultants and sole traders, all of whom are excluded under this Bill.
	We should remember that in previous debates many Members have reiterated the view that there is nothing wrong in principle with lobbying. In fact, lobbying brings life to our democracy and we, as Members of Parliament, frequently gain important information from being lobbied. Therefore, nothing I or any of my colleagues say today will suggest that there is anything wrong in principle with lobbying. That activity should, however, take place in the full light of day, not in the shadows.

Valerie Vaz: Is my hon. Friend aware that a leading tobacco company employed 161 people to lobby MEPs? Would all 161 of them be registered?

Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I assume she is saying that the 161 individual lobbyists were employed by the tobacco company. If that is the case, under this Bill not one of them—not a single one—would be required to be on the register. That is why when she intervened on me I was saying that we want all lobbying activities to be brought into the full light of day, not remain in the shadows.

John Redwood: Has the hon. Gentleman discussed his proposals with leading national
	charities, because they might not wish to have to register their people, who are legitimately campaigning for their charitable purpose?

Jon Trickett: I have—but I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has done so. He might be well advised to meet with them first, before asking a question like that. Yes, I have met with the leading charities. I have also met with representative organisations of the leading charities, and I have made two things clear to them. First, if they employ lobbyists according to the definition that we want to introduce, they will have to be registered. Even the large representative organisations say that that is the right thing to do. We are talking about professional lobbyists. Throughout the country, in every neighbourhood and constituency, there is much excellent community and charitable work that is undertaken voluntarily, and that is not professional lobbying. We do not expect people who lobby us at our surgeries with a particular problem in their neighbourhood to have to register. However, if a large organisation such as a charity—I can think of some that spend £300 million a year; that is their turnover—has parliamentary consultants working for them or for third-party organisations that are lobbying Parliament in the material interests of that charity, that should be registered. The register will take only a few moments to fill in—it is not a particularly arduous task—and it is right that anyone who lobbies Parliament should be on it.
	That is not my view alone, and it is not the view simply of the Opposition. I have met, as I have told the Committee, all the representative organisations of the lobbying industry. I have met many chairmen, chairwomen and managing directors of the larger lobbying companies and, almost without exception, they think that the legislation is too weak and does not go far enough, so they oppose it. I have also met all the lobbying transparency campaigners. One would not think that the people who campaign for lobbying and the people who campaign to constrain lobbying would inevitably share the same point of view but, in this case, without exception, both sides say that the Bill is simply inadequate.
	The Bill is simply not up to the task, and it is likely to make lobbying more opaque, rather than more transparent. By suggesting that the register should include only consultant lobbyists, the register would exclude—these are important figures; they are not mine—99% of meetings between lobbyists and Ministers; 80% of lobbyists; and 95% of lobbying activity. Much of that activity and those lobbyists are already registered on voluntary registers. More likely than not, they will deregister if the Bill is introduced. We will know less about the industry and its activities than we do now.

Anne Main: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that private meetings, private lunches and any contact that seeks to influence or give guidance to people on how to influence is not covered by the Bill?

Jon Trickett: That is a powerful point, but I do not want to stray too far down that track because you may rule me out of order, Ms Primarolo; the issue is not relevant to this group of amendments. However, the hon. Lady is quite correct—as a whole, the Bill completely excludes 99% of lobbying activity. Consultant lobbying
	does not include, for example, lobbyists who work in-house—a point that I have made in response to the Government. People who work for big tobacco companies or those who operate in law firms as lobbyists would not have to register.
	I shall give the Committee an example. The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, was revealed to have texted Mr Fred Michel, the in-house lobbyist for News Corporation, about matters that pertained to News Corporation’s business, but those exchanges would not have to be registered if the Bill became law, because Mr Michel was an in-house lobbyist, not a consultant lobbyist. One of the big scandals of this Parliament would simply be missed by legislation that is meant to clean up lobbying once and for all.
	Even the Leader of the House conceded to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that the definition of consultant lobbyist was narrow. He said—bear in mind that a Minister said this, not us—“It is not that we believe consultant lobbyists are the only ones lobbying. Clearly they are a minority.” The Leader of the House makes the point more effectively and with fewer words than I am. The point is that a very small minority of lobbyists and lobbying activity will be covered the Bill.

Bernard Jenkin: As Members of Parliament, we expect to be lobbied by people who are lobbying in their own interests. In that respect, a company is a person. In legal terms it is just another person. We expect to be lobbied by our constituents and by other people who are not constituents in respect of matters of national interest. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why such lobbying is corrupt? What would be corrupt—[Interruption.] Excuse me. What would be corrupt is Members of Parliament receiving payment or being influenced by anything other than argument. Otherwise, I cannot see why he wants to capture so many people in a lobbying register. Can he explain that?

Jon Trickett: I will briefly make several points. First, there is a Government amendment before the Committee this afternoon that excludes companies from having to register, yet the hon. Gentleman points out that in law companies are individuals—they are legal persons. On corruption, I have not made the case that the lobbying industry is wholly corrupt. Not at all, but there is a huge gap between the population and the political and commercial elite in our country.
	Too many people believe that decisions are made in secret, in the quiet rooms around here—smoke-filled rooms, perhaps. Nobody knows how those decisions are made or on whose behalf. It would be better if the general public understood how decisions were made, who was pressing for those decisions and in whose interests they were made. The Prime Minister himself said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. We should introduce legislation that would make sure that all lobbying activity was registered and properly accounted for. People would then know how decisions were made.

Grahame Morris: On the scope of the clause and the limitations on who is covered by it, Members of Parliament are lobbied, but will the public think it morally right that at least 58 Members of Parliament
	on the Government Benches have current or recent directorships or consultancy activities with private health care firms from which they benefit personally? That is not covered at all by the terms and scope of the Bill.

Jon Trickett: I thank my hon. Friend. My views on MPs’ second jobs are well known. They were debated in the House not too long ago.
	The Leader of the House accepted that consultant lobbyists are a tiny minority. The Government have constructed a straw man argument in order to give the appearance that they are taking action on lobbying transparency, whereas in reality they are doing no such thing. Why is a register of consultant lobbyists proposed in the Bill? In my view it is because the Government merely want to be seen to be doing something while in fact doing very little.
	We, the lobbying industry and the lobbying transparency campaigners, as well as the Select Committee, all want to act to achieve greater lobbying transparency for the good and the health of our democracy. We want to suggest something different to the Government. We want lobbying transparency because in a 21st century democracy it is only right that people can see how their Government are being influenced and by whom—which commercial forces lie behind particular decisions. That requires a register of all professional lobbyists. All lobbyists would then have to meet the same high standards, not only to create a level playing field within the industry, but to make sure that big money can no longer buy more influence than the rest of the population by using underhand techniques.
	Instead of ensuring high standards in the lobbying industry, however, the Government would make the situation much worse. That is not simply my view. Mr George Kidd, acting chair of the UK Public Affairs Council, the body that runs the largest voluntary register of lobbyists, said that
	“there is a risk that in doing something we do harm rather than good. We may end up with a less transparent system than we currently have if the definition is unchanged and”—
	listen to this—
	“we have a statutory register with very few names, if any, on it. People will be able to construct their business never to be on it.”
	He suggests that we may have a register with no names on it—no lobbyists at all—and a register that is so full of loopholes that it is possible for anybody, with the smallest amount of ingenuity, to find a way to avoid getting on to the register. It would appear that the word “transparency” in the Bill’s title is a total misnomer.
	If all that were not bad enough, Government amendment 76, in the name of the Leader of the House, rather remarkably succeeds in achieving what many think is impossible: making a bad Bill even worse. Despite comprehensive and uniquely united criticism and a consensus against the Bill, the Government have decided in their wisdom further to amend it, not in order to strengthen it, as lobbyists and experts have recommended, but rather further to weaken it. Rather than including companies and organisations that employ lobbyists on the register, as happens currently with the voluntary register, the Government have chosen to seek to limit the scope of the Bill further with this amendment by removing the need for a lobbyist’s employer to register. This is an important point, so I hope that the Committee is following the argument. For a register to bring meaningful
	transparency to the lobbying industry and to allow public scrutiny of lobbying, it must surely include, at the very least, all of those who are doing lobbying. That surely must include the individual lobbyist’s employer. Yet that is precisely what the amendment seeks to avoid. Without the information as to who is employing a particular lobbyist, it will be impossible to know which organisations or companies are lobbying at all, let alone what they are lobbying about or how often they are lobbying. The amendment is a retrograde step.
	I have highlighted before how the Bill is weaker than the existing voluntary code, and the amendment is a case in point. The public or an organisation seeking the services of a lobbyist can currently search the voluntary registers in a way that discloses an organisation or employer’s client list, but the Government’s new proposals will remove that ability. The amendment removes the necessity for the lobbyists’ employers to be registered. We would know who the lobbyists were if they were consultant lobbyists, not if they were professional lobbyists, but we would not know who they were working for. We would not know who their colleagues were. Nor would we know which clients were being served by their colleagues. Nor would we know which other clients were employing the same company. We would not know the identity of the directors of the company. I would argue that knowing the names and identities of the directors of the company is quite important. Arguably, a company director may not themselves be a lobbyist, but it would be of interest to know who the directors of the company were which employed the lobbyists who were then on the register, and the amendment would exclude such a possibility.
	Finally, we would not know who the shareholders of the company were, which leaves a massive opportunity for opacity. We would not know who the directors are or who owns the company, the name of the company or its registered address; we will be able to know simply that a lobbyist, Mr M. Smith, or whatever his name may be, is working out of Wimbledon. We will have no idea who his colleagues are, what company he works for, what its registered address is or who its shareholders and directors are. It really is a very bad and dangerous amendment. Rather than opening up the lobbying industry, the Government’s proposal would allow companies and organisations to hide behind the legislation.

Grahame Morris: The point about identifying who works for whom must be complicated by the fact that some consultancies are employed by a number of different companies. Could they disguise the fact, using zero-hours contracts, that they are not working exclusively for one employer?

Jon Trickett: Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. The truth is that we will have no idea whom they are working for. We will know who their clients are, because that is required on the register, but we will have no idea who employs them. That seems to me to be a rather critical question to ask. For those people now on the voluntary register and operating to an ethical code, we know who their clients are and whom they work for, and the companies they work for also register. If the amendment is made, we will have no idea whom they are working for or who their other clients are. It seems
	to me that those on the Government Front Bench—I look to the Minister—should reflect on the amendment carefully before deciding whether to press it. It is very dangerous.

Geoffrey Cox: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that those dangers would arise as a result of the proposed amendment? The word “person” would apply equally to an individual as to a company, so
	“A person must not carry on the business of consultant lobbying unless… the person… is entered in the register”
	could mean either a company or a human being. Indeed, it is likely to mean both, because if the person is carrying on business on behalf of an employer that is a company, he should register not only himself, but the company. I do not understand his objection, unless he has seen something in the Bill that I have not.

Jon Trickett: Let us look at the clause concerned. Clause 1 currently states:
	“A person must not carry on the business of consultant lobbying unless—
	(a) the person, or
	(b) if the person is an employee, the person’s employer,
	is entered in the register of consultant lobbyists.”
	Amendment 76 would exclude paragraph (b), so I deduce from that that the Government do not wish to have on the register the employer of the person who is being registered. If I was incorrect in my interpretation, no purpose whatsoever would be served by that deletion, or by its inclusion in the Bill in the first place.

Andrew McDonald: Is that not the entire point? There would be no need to specify the person’s employer if they could stand alone. If a person is included, what was the point of putting that in the Bill in the first place? It is being deleted specifically to exclude the corporate entity. It is as plain as a pikestaff.

Jon Trickett: rose—

Geoffrey Cox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Trickett: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have a chance to make a contribution if he catches your eye, Ms Primarolo.
	The point is this: we will have the same individual, Mr Smith from Wimbledon, and we will know who his clients are. Under the Bill, as currently drafted, we will know who his employer is. If amendment 76 is made, we will not know who his employer is, so there will be a gaping hole in our knowledge. It might not matter so much for us, but there are tens of millions of people outside in the country who want to know why the Government abandoned legislation on, say, plain tobacco packaging, or why they suddenly decided to proceed with the privatisation of our national health service.
	Amendment 76 would have a dramatic impact on the rest of the Bill, rendering parts of it entirely redundant. Clause 4, for example, requires a lobbyist captured by the Bill to register the address of their main place of business or, if there is no such place, their home address. The individual lobbyist’s home address could be registered and we would not know their place of employment. Yet
	clause 4 has been drafted precisely to attempt to ascertain where that person would be working from. Again, the Government amendment imperils the very principle of transparency that the Bill claims to advocate.

Geoffrey Cox: rose—

Jon Trickett: I shall not give way again on this point.
	In addition, if only individuals are required to register, there will be considerable risk of a knock-on impact on the Government’s ability to raise the necessary funding for the register. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister will say about that.
	My final series of points relate to amendment 9, which stands in my name, and amendment 48, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). We recognise that lobbying also includes advising others and facilitating meetings. Yet the Government have failed to include such activity in the Bill—perhaps because they have no idea what lobbying consists of, having failed to conduct a proper consultation.
	It is clear that much of the activity of lobbyists is not made up of face-to-face encounters with Ministers or permanent secretaries, but of giving advice to their clients about how to proceed, whose door to knock on, which telephone to call and which café in Portcullis House a person should be sitting in if they want to bump into someone whom they wish to influence.
	Communication, facilitation of meetings and giving advice all amount to lobbying activity, but all are excluded by the Bill. The substance of amendments 9 and 48 relate to that issue. We have listened to the industry and campaigners for transparency, who have all said that the Government have misunderstood the nature of lobbying. That is why we, like the Select Committee, have tabled an amendment to include lobbying activities not identified in the Bill: advising others how to lobby or arranging or facilitating meetings with key decision makers.
	As Iain Anderson, the deputy chair of the Association of Professional Political Consultants, recognised—again, this is the industry’s view, not mine—the vast majority of lobbying is not about meeting Ministers or permanent secretaries but advising organisations about how the political process proceeds. That is why, under the Government’s definition, more than 95% of all lobbying activity will simply not be covered by the legislation.

Tom Brake: Under the hon. Gentleman’s approach to lobbying, how many companies would be on the register and how many contacts would have to be logged each year? What would be the cost of running his alternative?

Jon Trickett: This is a £2 billion industry, and what we propose would cover almost all the activity that we can identify in it. It would not need to be costly; we have sat down with the industry, taken their advice and listened to their criticisms. They have told me that to complete a form of the kind proposed would take only a few moments a year and dramatically open up the whole industry. We will come to the register when we discuss other clauses. I am sure that you, Ms Primarolo,
	will tell me that I cannot pursue a matter that is the subject of later amendments. We will come back to the costs of the register.

Andrew Gwynne: rose—

Jon Trickett: I will give way to my hon. Friend and then wind up.

Andrew Gwynne: I noticed that the Minister did not respond to my hon. Friend’s important point that 95% of lobbying activity will not be covered by the Bill. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Public Relations Consultants Association goes even further, specifying that the Bill would cover as little as 1% of overall lobbying?

Jon Trickett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is of course right. The whole industry agrees without exception and universally—there is total consensus—that this Bill simply does not meet the challenge of the day. The industry wants a register. It wants transparency because it lives in the shadows. Many of the professional and ethical lobbyists feel that they are being criticised unfairly. They also feel that they have been undermined by a small minority of lobbyists who are behaving unethically and do not register on any of the voluntary registers. They want a level playing field—they are right to do so—and the public want to know how decisions are being made.
	The Chartered Institute of Public Relations summed up the situation perfectly when it said:
	“The Government’s lack of engagement with the industry is reflected in a poorly drafted and narrow definition which does not accurately reflect the work undertaken by lobbyists, including those the Government perceive to be acting in the capacity of a consultant lobbyist.”
	Let me return to the problem of who will be caught under the Government’s definitions and who will be excluded. It is reported that in 2011 the British financial sector spent £92 million on lobbying politicians and regulators. Documents have now come to light which suggest that they secured a series of governmental financial measures that were very favourable to the finance industry. However, all this lobbying activity was carried out by in-house lobbyists and therefore would not count within the definition of “lobbying” that the Government have sought to deploy in the Bill.

Tom Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Trickett: No—I am about to finish.
	The consequence is that the public would have no knowledge of how any of these decisions were made. That is why we have tabled our amendments.

Anne Main: It is important that we are having the Committee stage of this Bill on the Floor of the House because we can, I hope, bring consensus to the matter. Lobbying affects Members on both sides of the House and affects all of us as constituency Members of Parliament, so it is important that we get the Bill right or there will have been little purpose in having it.
	I rise to speak to my new clause 5. I have a deal of sympathy with amendments 9 and 48, which seek to capture some of the concerns that many of us have about making sure that the field of lobbying is fair and
	transparent and that the definition of “lobbying” captures all the activities that most people would recognise as such. The new clause refers to activities that any “reasonable person would assume” to be activities
	“intended to have the effect”
	of lobbying. That is important, because lobbying is a very subtle, even devious, art. Pressure can be brought to bear with a view to setting off a favourable reaction or having a desired effect. We have often heard the aphorism, “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings set off a tornado elsewhere?” A lobbyist would certainly hope that it does. We have heard about the subtle art of making sure that people are in the right place at the right time to catch somebody’s eye to have that casual conversation. As the Bill stands, none of this is captured, and I am very concerned about that. The public are rightly sceptical about why, despite campaigns and efforts by ordinary people, so many decisions seem to go the way of the big developer, the big money or the big organisation, while the little’s person’s voice gets lost. Many of us would believe that the answer is powerful, behind-the-scenes lobbying.
	I hope that we can find a way forward through this morass of amendments, many of which seek to achieve the same thing. I do not hold mine so dear that I would not support somebody’s else’s if it brought greater clarity to the Bill, because that is what this Committee stage is about. I want to make sure that up-front lobbying by charities and organisations that are captured by the Bill and, indeed, logged on departmental websites, is seen as fine. We need to address the informal, behind-the-scenes lobbying over the cup of coffee, the glass of wine or the lunch. That is the lobbyist’s art. These connections may be made by people whose role is a lobbyist and who use personal and private connections to call in favours, gain access or put their point of view. Surely that is what people would hope a Bill such as this should be about, and I hope that it is what it will be about.

Paul Flynn: The hon. Lady, who is fair minded and independent, is making powerful points. Could she prevail on her Front-Bench colleagues, who have been garlanded with this albatross, to follow the advice of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, withdraw the Bill and introduce a sensible one? Otherwise this legislative atrocity may well go through the House and the Government will find this to be the signature Bill of the Tory “ineptocracy” that they are creating.

Anne Main: The hon. Gentleman makes partisan comments about a Tory Government rather than the coalition Government under whom I find myself serving, but his powerful point has been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.
	The way in which things are hidden from public gaze —our gaze—is an issue.

Jim Cunningham: Voluntary organisations have big concerns. Age Concern could lobby on a number of issues, so it could get caught by the Bill, as could Macmillan cancer nurses, because they lobby and raise funds for charities.

Anne Main: I do not have a problem with having a full, fair and transparent register of lobbying activities. I do not believe that charities will feel themselves constrained from lobbying. I am concerned that the Bill’s loopholes, which do not catch personal, behind-the-scenes and subtle lobbying, could lead to more lobbying being driven underground by the craft’s practitioners. The charities have nothing to fear by being transparent about making powerful cases. My concern is about decisions that have been influenced subtly and policies that have been driven by a particular narrative behind the scenes that we as Members of Parliament find hard to track down.

Sarah Wollaston: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the barnacles are scraped off the boat—including our entire public health policy—what people want to know is what organisations are represented by those who are in a position to make powerful cases in rooms to which the rest of us do not have access?

Anne Main: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Many Members will have short careers in this place and I am sure that my career is as open as anyone else’s to the vagaries of public decision making. Many former Members go on to exert the subtle forms of lobbying that we are all decrying, because they get powerful positions in and links to industries and bodies and know, as has been said, which buttons to press and which mobile phone numbers to call. That is what I want to address. Other Members have the same concerns and the Select Committee has raised them, too. Today gives us an opportunity to ensure a level playing field and to bring a degree of clarity to the domain of lobbying and the role of a lobbyist.
	As I said in a speech last week, I am unhappy that discussions about a strategic rail freight interchange in my constituency were held over a private lunch. That would not be captured by the Bill. The gentleman involved is a professional lobbyist, but he is also a personal friend of the then Transport Minister. I do not understand the volte-face, but it would help if I knew who met whom. The e-mail the gentleman sent asked whether there was
	“anything your department can do”.
	That is how a lobbyist works: once they get an ear and access, the chain reaction—the butterfly effect—that they so desire occurs and, without transparency or a register, it is very hard for people to know where meetings have taken place.
	Private lunches would be captured by my proposed new clause, which covers any activity for the purpose of “influencing government” or
	“advising others how to influence government.”
	Any one of us could sit at a table at a private lunch or a fundraising function and end up being lobbied firmly. If such lobbying were to continue, I would feel an obligation to declare it under my proposed new clause. I could listen to what was being said, but if I did anything about it I would regard myself as having been successfully lobbied.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady’s proposed new clause has a lot to recommend it, but most lobbyists would disagree profoundly with some of the language she has used about them. They do not want to be
	devious or skulking in corridors. They are happy to do their business because they know it is an essential part of the democratic process to get across a strong view to those who are legislating on behalf of the whole of society. They are calling for these kinds of changes as well, so may I urge the hon. Lady to be a bit nicer about lobbyists? Ultimately, I think she is calling for what they want.

Anne Main: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am not decrying lobbyists. What I am saying is that I need to know who they are, what they are doing, when they are doing it, who they have spoken to and what happened as a result of those conversations, however informal or formal. The register will not capture that. I am sorry if I have offended any gentle lobbyist anywhere, but there are quite a few lobbyists whom I would not give the time of day to. Indeed, I have named them. I think that Mr Hoare knows my views on his lobbying activities in my constituency.
	I am sure that the scenario that I described last week is not unique; I was just fortunate enough to find out about aspects of it. Once there is a chink in the dam, there is a chance that the lobbyist will effect the result that they want, but that does not happen in a transparent fashion. Subtle messages and arguments over a private lunch or a catch-up with old chums get results, so why will we not see more of that practice if it is not captured by the Bill?
	If lobbying is the next big disaster to hit Parliament, the public have the right to expect us to deliver. I believe that we have the opportunity to deliver a way of recognising where these lobbyists are, for good or bad, and what they are doing. We need to mend the Bill today. Whichever amendments get picked up, I think that we should run with them to show that this House is bigger than party politics.
	Dwight Eisenhower, who many people consider to have been a great man who gave great quotes, said:
	“You have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the ‘falling domino’ principle. You have a row of dominoes set up. You knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have the beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.”
	That crumbling effect is exactly what a lobbyist seeks to effect behind the scenes. They pick their domino. One never knows who that domino is. It might be somebody who works in a Department, a Minister or anyone else who has influence in the chain of argument. When that domino falls, the chain reaction can have the most profound influences. In my case, a refusal was turned into a permission. I believe that, but I cannot prove it. When the domino effect happens, it is amazing how other people pick things up and run with them. Most people are never lobbied directly—it all goes back through the chain reaction to the original lobbying.

Helen Goodman: I am very interested in what the hon. Lady is saying. I am not clear whether her new clause covers the wide penumbra of public and quasi-governmental organisations that spend a lot of public money and that can be influenced in the way they spend that money. I think, for example, of health authorities and local enterprise partnerships.
	Do we not need to address the influence on those local authorities, with respect not only to policy, but to how they spend public money?

Anne Main: The hon. Lady raises a large number of points. As I have said, I am not wedded to new clause 5. It would perhaps be somewhat cumbersome to remove the existing clause and insert my new clause. However, it does seek to cover anyone acting on behalf of a client or an employer and anyone acting as a volunteer on behalf of a charitable organisation or on their own behalf.

Charles Hendry: I want to seek clarification on that point. A trustee of a charity might say in a board meeting, “What you should do is write to the relevant Minister and express your concerns. This is the Minister and this is how you should write the letter.” That person, who is trying to do a good thing for their organisation, would be captured by my hon. Friend’s new clause. Such people might therefore say, “I do not want to risk getting caught up in that. I might get something wrong in the process.”

Anne Main: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I do not have a legal brain, but it might be possible to sort that out. My view is that if, in the course of a conversation, somebody makes a general point about how things can best be moved forward, that is hardly the same as saying, “Here is the mobile telephone number. I’m sure the Minister will meet you for lunch.” or, “How about we have a catch-up over coffee and I will tell you all about this new project I’m trying to push in your area.”
	I do not feel that those two things are the same.
	I am willing—as, I am sure, are many hon. Members—to take on board any improvements that make the Bill deliver what most of us want it to deliver. We can put exceptions and guidance in the Bill, and I included in the new clause clarifications such as
	“anything done in response to or compliance with a court order;
	anything done for the purpose of complying with a requirement under an enactment;
	a public response to an invitation to information or evidence;…
	a formal response to a public invitation to tender;
	anything done by a person acting in official capacity on behalf of a government organisation;”.
	I have tried to include exclusions, and I am more than happy for people to add others if they think they could word the new clause better. We want to get rid of cosy chats, pressure behind the scenes, and people with the big money—£12 million in my constituency has been spent in trying to get this through, which is probably peanuts compared with some other industries.

Therese Coffey: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Anne Main: I am just about to draw to a close because I would like to hear about the amendments tabled by other Members. This is not about filibustering or talking out the Bill today.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Anne Main: I will take one intervention from the hon. Lady and then I will conclude.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady and I am intrigued, and very pleased, to see her new clause tabled for discussion. I am particularly interested that she has chosen to define “government” in a way that excludes the Director of Public Prosecutions. As she will know, the present definition of Minister or permanent secretary includes the DPP, who is supposed to be independent. Will she confirm that she thinks the DPP should be excluded from the register?

Anne Main: I hope the DPP is always considered to be independent, but if there is some legal reason why that should not be the case in the Bill, I would welcome hearing it. That is what we should be discussing today. I do not wish to speak for too long, but my concern is that ministerial lobbying that goes on at every level, including with persons of influence, is not captured by this Bill because the causal nature of some conversations and chats is not included. I would like to see that tightened up, including guidance on what ministerial conversations can be held after some of that subtle lobbying has been going on.
	I am sorry if lobbyists are offended today, but I hope I am trying to deliver a level playing field for all lobbyists, and not have some hiding in a back room getting advantage while others are captured by measures in the Bill. I hope we can progress with that and achieve consensus on some of the amendments that will get rid of the worries that many of us have.

Graham Allen: Even that most brutal sport, boxing, has a code of honour so that when an opponent is bloody, battered and exhausted, they are not kept in the ring but we try—if we can—to deliver the coup de grâce. I do not like witnessing the parliamentary equivalent of propping up the opponent. In virtually every aspect, this Bill is battered, bloodied, and ready to fall over. Rather than the grizzled cornermen, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House are pushing in some game bantamweights to keep the fight going. They are good people, but they are not here today. They are putting other people up to argue for a Bill that was not their doing. Rather than that, we should end this cruel sport and do what the all-party Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform proposed, once it was allowed to report and get engaged in this process. It proposed that the Bill be put into a special Committee so it that could be discussed and got right—not delayed, but brought back to the House as a new Bill that does the business for everybody—within six months. I argue that there would be a strong consensus behind that new Bill.
	We have worked hard and I pay tribute to my Committee, two members of which—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn)—are present in the debate. Other members are on shift to come and do their turn over the next three days. Both they, and members of staff who worked incredibly hard to get a report in front of Members in about seven working days, deserve the utmost credit.
	I believe in evidence-based policy making. Through that period of about seven days, we called for, sought and proactively received evidence that provided a welter of overwhelming information to say that the Bill does not work or do what it promised to do. This Bill
	does not do what it should say on the can—I do not know whether the Trade Descriptions Act applies in the House of Commons, but if it did there would be a strong case for putting somebody at least in front of a magistrate. This is not the lobbying Bill, it is the 1% lobbying Bill. Most of the problems that have been identified across the House, in the media and elsewhere, will not be affected or tackled by the Bill.
	As well as producing a massive wodge of evidence for Members to interpret, my Committee also proposed a number of amendments designed to make the Bill what it should be—a genuine lobbying Bill. In clause 1, as part of our long debate over the next three days, we are attempting to ask: who are the lobbyists? When one lobbying group’s trade association says, “We think maybe 20% of lobbyists will be covered” and another says, “1% of lobbyists will be covered”, there is clearly a massive welter of people who do what we normally think of as lobbying but who will not be covered.

Therese Coffey: I would like to understand how many people the hon. Gentleman believes will be required to register as a lobbyist under the proposals that he and his Committee have put forward.

Graham Allen: Under the Government proposals, the Public Relations Consultants Association says that less than 1% of meetings with Ministers take place by consultants without the clients present. Transparency International states that the Government are not even going to capture the 20% of the industry that they have identified as the reason for the register. One can choose whatever figure one wishes.
	On the earlier intervention by the Deputy Leader of the House, I say gently that this is not a choice between 100% of everything we regard as lobbying being registered and enormous bureaucracy, and 1% being registered. Let us grow up, have a debate, and find a happy medium. It does not have to be perfect the first time, but it certainly does not need to be as imperfect as this Bill.

Jim Cunningham: rose—

Paul Flynn: rose—

Graham Allen: I will give way first to my hon. Friend from the Select Committee.

Paul Flynn: I also sat on the Public Administration Committee in the previous Parliament, and evidence was given that the information required would not be some bureaucratic burden but information on the computers of the companies involved. It is a simple matter of cut, paste and e-mail. The costs will be minute. Does my hon. Friend not think that the most impressive evidence we heard in Committee came from organisations that have been campaigning passionately for the past 20 years for a lobbying Bill? They said unanimously that this Bill is worse than nothing at all.

Graham Allen: Indeed, and for Labour colleagues who unkindly say that the Government are not seeking consensus, I say that they have been brilliant in trying to build consensus. I have never seen the embrace that has taken place between Spinwatch, whose very existence is to expose problems in the lobbying industry, and trade
	associations of the lobbying industry. If pulling those two groups together is not consensus building, I do not know what is.
	There is another tremendous example of consensus building. One would never have thought that the antagonism and bile that has been exchanged between, for example, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Countryside Alliance, could ever be put aside, but those two bodies now stroll hand in hand towards the sunset because they believe that the Bill is inadequate and that it does not help them. We will come to that when we debate part 2 tomorrow. Let no one churlishly say that the Government have been unable to build a good consensus on the Bill.

Jim Cunningham: Like most hon. Members, my hon. Friend will remember the campaigns for a lobbying Bill. Most people thought it would deal with the big fish who have undue influence in this country, whether in service or political terms, but that has not happened. We must also remember that MPs could be restricted under the Bill. He will remember the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act 1998. MPs were stopped from getting information from various public bodies on behalf of their constituents. In 2006, the Government put Back Benchers up to try to amend those measures.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend makes wise points. Perhaps I should excuse myself for having a little bit of fun at the expense of the Deputy Leader of the House and the Minister who, in my experience of working with the Political and Constitutional Reform, are committed to what they do. However, that is not enough in this case. They have been put up as the fall guys to promote a Bill that has very few friends and does not do what it should.
	My hon. Friend spoke of the public perception, which I mentioned on Second Reading. The public expected the House of Commons to do something about lobbying. The Prime Minister said something should be done about it. The coalition, in its agreement, and the Opposition had almost a contractual agreement that lobbying should be dealt with. All were committed and said clearly that lobbying should be dealt with. My hon. Friend is right that the people who will suffer most—I do not wish to repeat the points I made on Second Reading—are the public, who will be disillusioned that we will fail to do what we should. We agree that something clear, honest and open should be done, so perhaps the biggest losers will be hon. Members—the House of Commons as an institution, which is recovering from difficulties in the recent past. We had it in our power over the next three days to make a better Bill. It will not be the perfect Bill, but we had it in our power to try to make a better Bill. I will therefore take the opportunity to press amendment 48 to a Division, so that hon. Members have the opportunity of supporting their colleagues who serve on the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.
	I should make one other procedural point. I am surprised that knives will not operate on any of the next three days. I will cut my remarks short, but we should have knives so that we can have a sensible debate and vote on each of the key clauses. We need to deal with five key clauses today, but we may only get past clauses 1
	and 2. If we had a more sensible arrangement on the division of time, we could do a better job—I am not making a point against the Government.

Tom Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one thing? I have sought clarification from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who speaks for the official Opposition, but it has never been explained to me. Ministers already report their meetings with in-house lobbyists. What do we gain by extending the register to include in-house lobbyists when Ministers already report such meetings?

Graham Allen: I am very much in favour of extending the register to in-house lobbyists because many people regard the biggest scandals—the ones reported in the national press and elsewhere, and those that come to hon. Members’ attention—as resulting from the activities of people who work inside large multinational companies, whether engineering, arms manufacturing or many other things. It is not beyond our wit to produce such a measure.
	The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has courageously underlined how much lobbying takes place outwith the scope of the Bill. She highlighted with great tenacity some of the most poisonous and difficult things to deal with in the lobbying arena. We should listen to her and learn how to improve the Bill with her proposals.

Anne Main: I should reinforce that point. There was no ministerial logging of the meeting to which I have referred. It was a private lunch, but it was admitted that the application was discussed. Such a meeting will never appear under the Bill; it was revealed as a result of a parliamentary question.

Graham Allen: It is not for me to network within the coalition Government, but I advise the Deputy Leader of the House to make an appointment with the hon. Lady so she can tell him clearly and forthrightly how lobbying has influenced things in her constituency. Currently, such lobbying is not covered in the Bill, which is supposed to be about lobbying. The Bill is not about one or two problem people such as Ministers, permanent secretaries or people in the lobbying industry. Hon. Members and the public have been waiting for the Bill, and it is a big disappointment. It does not cover many of the problems the hon. Lady describes.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. He is describing how the public regard both hon. Members’ treatment of the Bill and the Bill itself. Does he agree that it is a mockery that we will probably not even reach, much less debate, amendments tabled for debate later this evening? What confidence can the public have that hon. Members are taking lobbying seriously when, not only does the process undermine us, but the Bill manages to be weaker than the current provisions? Are we not sending ourselves up? It is contemptuous of the public and of ourselves.

Graham Allen: It beggars belief that we have three days to talk about a lobbying Bill and some of the key issues highlighted by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee will not be paid the due respect of having an airing in a Committee of the whole House. I agree with the hon. Lady that people outside will say, “What are they playing at? They promised us a Bill, and now they
	are playing parliamentary games so that we do not have the time to debate very important matters, such as the role of MPs, the definition of lobbyists, whether there should be better scrutiny of expenses paid by charities, and the definition of political activities.” I will not make that worse by going on for too much longer.

Susan Elan Jones: The Deputy Leader of the House made a point about logging meetings with internal representatives of organisations. The problem is that, even if we accept that the system is 100% perfect, which I do not, the log does not include Parliamentary Private Secretaries, special advisers, senior civil servants and other people to whom internal representatives speak. I was contacted recently by a senior figure from Starbucks. I will not meet them, but their interest in me was because of an all-party parliamentary group with which I was connected. Such contacts should be logged.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have only a day to discuss those issues, which will be covered in the next group of amendments. I hope that the Committee will have the time to debate them, but it is now a matter of doubt whether we will have the chance to do so.
	Much comes back to the fact that the Government do not consult Parliament in an effective way. If the Government had consulted Parliament, many of the foibles and flaws in the Bill could have been dealt with. My Committee spent a year, on behalf of every Member, considering this matter. We then spent seven hectic days trying to produce a report for the House. It is as if we had not bothered; it is as if the parliamentary process was irrelevant. The Bill has been stuffed into the sausage machine in the hope that it will be voted through tonight and the next two nights.
	In conclusion—I will speak to other amendments on behalf of my Select Committee and others—the Prime Minister said that lobbying would be the next big scandal to hit us. I am afraid that there has been another scandal: the prostitution of the House of Commons by the Government in the way that the Bill has been brought forward. This is not a partisan point, but a point about the legislature and the Executive. I hope that there is a communion between Members of this House, who are parliamentarians, to say that this is an unacceptable way of making law. It would be unacceptable if it produced good law; it is absolutely intolerable that it produces such terrible law.
	On behalf of my Select Committee, let me say that the Bill should be put into a special Committee so that we can have something we can all be proud of and say to our constituents, “You wanted us to do something about lobbying. The Prime Minister said it was a big issue, the coalition agreement said it was important, the Labour Front Bench said it was important and here it is, we have done the job. It has taken us a few years and another six months, but here it is.” If it is not, I am afraid that this House will be dragged into disrepute because of the way the Bill has come before us.

Geoffrey Cox: The hon. Gentleman makes a familiar lament. I remember making it myself many times in the previous Parliament, from the Opposition Benches on which he now sits, in relation to his own Government.
	There are those of us on the Government Benches who have concerns about the drafting of the Bill. I hope those on the Front Bench will listen to them and understand that there is no need to dive into the trenches and resist, and protect every clause. I must say that in making criticisms of the Bill—specifically, on clause 1—the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) deployed a fundamentally misconceived argument, one that a short acquaintance with its provisions can demonstrate. It is important, if we are to make criticisms of the Bill, and to expect the Government to move on them, that we ensure they are well targeted and accurate. If they are not, all that will come from the Opposition will, if I may say so, be a wall of noise. A wall of noise will not persuade the Government to change individual clauses.
	Government amendment 76, which seeks to delete clause 1(1)(b), does not do the mischief the hon. Member for Hemsworth suggested. After the deletion, clause 1 will read:
	“A person must not carry on the business of consultant lobbying unless the person is entered in the register of consultant lobbyists.”
	The word “person” is apt to cover a multitude of types of persons: it can cover an individual, a partnership and a corporate entity. That is plain in clause 25, which is not to be amended, where the interpretations provision is set out:
	“Where the Registrar is required or permitted to serve a notice on a person, this is to be effected—
	(a) if the person is a registered company…by sending it by post to the company’s registered office;
	(b) if the person is an individual, by delivering it in person;
	(c) in any other case…to the last known main address”.
	It is plain that the word “person” in clause 1 covers companies and is not intended to exclude companies, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth suggested.

Chris Bryant: The hon. and learned Gentleman is always very persuasive and clever, so I hope he will be able to help me. Which persons, using his definition, would be required to register in a situation where, for instance, News Corp wanted to buy out the whole of BSkyB? It would not be any member of News Corp. It would not be the company itself, anybody it employed full-time, its lawyers or any of its consultancy companies, unless they were predominantly engaged in lobbying. Am I right to say that not a single person in that process would have to register?

Geoffrey Cox: Let me come on to that question, because I want to tackle it, if it is appropriate to do so, in connection with clause 1. First, let me make it clear that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Hemsworth, made an assertion in this Committee that the intention of Government amendment 76 was to exclude companies and employers. That is simply not right: that is a misconception. If the Opposition pour a torrent of misconceptions on the drafting of the Bill, their criticisms will not be listened to. I am anxious, as is the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), that some criticisms should be listened to.
	The word “person” in clause 1, as proposed, would mean that anybody carrying on the business of consultant lobbying, whether they represented a partnership or a company, would have to register if they came within the definition of consultant lobbying. The problem the
	hon. Gentleman refers to is not a problem in clause 1; it is a problem in clause 2, to which I expect we are about to come. The problem in clause 2 is the definition of consultant lobbying, but clause 1 would cover employers and people who carry on a business of consultant lobbying through their employees. A company cannot carry on business in any way unless it be through human beings—their employees. Therefore, if a human being goes to lobby and is lobbying on behalf of a consultant lobbyist, as defined, then that consultant lobbyist, his employer, will have to register. There is no doubt about that—that is a fact.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Geoffrey Cox: I will not give way, because I want to be quite short if I can.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me a question and he made a legitimate point. What concerns me, although it may not be a point on clause 1; it may be a point on clause 2—I look with diffidence at the occupant of the Chair—is that an in-house lobbyist would not necessarily be caught by this definition. My suggestion and submission to those on the Government Front Bench is that in larger firms—for example, in major City law firms—it is now not uncommon for there to be specialist departments that deal with lobbying activities. It strikes me, with the greatest of respect to those on the Government Front Bench, that there is a strong case, where such a specialist department exists, for that department to have to register as a lobbyist.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Geoffrey Cox: No, I will not give way at this stage. The hon. Gentleman must forgive me. I want to be short, and there is much to cover.
	It may be argued that that position will encapsulate too wide a net. What concerns me is that that will offer the opportunity for the construction or the engineering of the structure of a business, so that what is a specialist lobbying company can become part of a larger business and thus avoid the need to register. That would be a regrettable element of manipulation, and bring into disrepute the passage of the Bill.
	I hope that those on my Front Bench, in considering this question, will answer it at leisure and not straight away on the hoof. It cannot be right that specialist departments—set up, it may be, in larger entities—that are often the product not so much of caprice, but of chance accident in the evolution of companies and their structures, should elude capture by this Bill.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Cox: No.

Chris Bryant: It will take seconds.

Geoffrey Cox: No.
	I hope that those on the Front Bench will consider what I hope they will believe is a constructive point. Let me say again that it is quite wrong of the hon. Member for Hemsworth to launch a tirade against those on our Front Bench by saying that clause 1 is being mischievously amended by the deletion of subsection (1)(b).

Mark Durkan: In following the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), let me say that I am surprised that he did not rest his rebuttal of the arguments about amendment 76 on clause 4, which clearly shows that the register—in the way it deals with persons—would cover those exact points. However, that does not fully allay the concerns we should have when we see the Government’s amendments to what is already a highly flawed Bill, not least Government amendments 92 to 95 to schedule 1, about which I am sure we will hear from the Government.
	Like others, I do not want to take up too much time now, given the range of issues that we need to reach in order to deal with the layers of inadequacy and evasion that are, to my mind, deliberately built into the Bill. The Government who told us that lobbying was the next big scandal have basically come up with the narrowest of nets to deal with professional lobbying, restricting it not to professional lobbying as we all know and understand it—lobbying as we see it practised in and around the parliamentary estate and elsewhere in public life, at various levels of government—but to a narrow definition of “consultant lobbying”.
	We have a net that is deliberately narrow, made up of holes that are deliberately wide. That is why I welcome the amendments from the Opposition Front Bench and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which would ensure a wider net with smaller holes. If Parliament achieves that, we will have done something for our credibility, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said. However, if we remain with the Bill as provided by the Government, or if we amend it in the way they have proposed, Parliament will be open not just to ridicule, but to suspicion. Why would we go along with a glaringly inadequate Bill? Why would we fail to respond to the representations that have come from so many people in the business who will not be affected—I am sure that some will be happily unaffected—but are bemused at what the Government have produced in part 1?
	I know that we looked at the Bill more widely on Second Reading, Mr Caton, but I hope it is in order to make the argument in the debate about this group of amendments and part 1 that it is hard for people not to be suspicious when they see the lobbying to be registered so narrowly defined in part 1, and the issues to be covered in part 2 so widely scoped. As many hon. Members who have spoken have pointed out, none of the lobbying scandals that have happened in recent years—not even those during the life of this Parliament—would have been ameliorated or mitigated in any way by the scope of this Bill. Instead of pretending that it will solve the next big scandal, let us be clear: it would not have addressed any of the big, small or medium scandals that we have seen in the last few years. That has to be a matter of design on the part of the Government. They cannot have missed all those points just as a matter of haphazard chance and sloppy drafting. To my mind, the scoping in part 1 is deliberately evasive.

Therese Coffey: The Government have already said that they are trying to fix a specific issue relating to a gap in transparency. I do not think I got an answer from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), so can the hon. Gentleman explain how many people he thinks will be required to register under the amendments
	we are discussing? Does he believe that MPs should also make a declaration whenever they meet a lobbyist, be they in-house, or from a trade union or a charity?

Mark Durkan: As other hon. Members have said, we do need a lobbying Bill, but we needed more consultation and proper pre-legislative scrutiny precisely to determine how many people would be caught and whether they should be comfortably caught under this Bill.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) is a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Under the current proposals, only two of the nearly 1,000 meetings would have been captured. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a completely nonsensical approach?

Mark Durkan: What my hon. Friend describes absolutely trivialises the claims that the Government are making for this Bill, especially when we consider what bearing it would have on the amount of lobbying of the Government and what would be registered. If we consider the Bill in terms of transparency, the slight, little bit of translucence that will emerge at the very edge of the current lobbying business is hardly what would pass for transparency in any meaningful sense of the word.

Anne Main: If some of those meetings are not captured, the only thing open to hon. Members is parliamentary questions and so on, yet quite often the response we get says that the cost of finding out whether somebody met someone else would be disproportionate. That is a problem. Once we get past that gatekeeper, we have no opportunity to explore what conversations were had or what impact they might have had.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The point of transparency and registration is about being able to say that, if all such engagement is absolutely above board and matter of fact, there is nothing to hide and nothing to worry about. When the picture is created, or when it can be canvassed by some, that there is something untoward about such contacts and representations—that they are an attempt to get undue influence in pursuit of a particular vested interest—the whole public policy system and Parliament suffer. That is what happens when those suspicions abound. We are trying to protect ourselves and the public understanding and trust of Government and parliamentary processes by ensuring we have a more meaningful Bill.
	That is why the amendments before us are important, not least amendment 48—which, as we know from the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, will probably be put to a vote—and the Opposition amendments, beginning with amendment 2, which basically take to task the Bill’s deliberately narrow definition of “consultant lobbying” by replacing it with a wider term, “professional lobbying”. This group of amendments also contains amendment 161, which stands in my name, which also tries to add more definition to the type and character of lobbying that we want the Bill to capture. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon said that there are issues
	with lobbying activity that is clearly carried on in firms and on behalf of firms. Such lobbying is a dedicated, professional wing of activity on the part of corporations, and it should be captured in any appropriate Bill.

Chris Bryant: Not least in broadcasting, which is one of the most lobbyacious parts of society, and for a very good reason—a lot of broadcasting depends on legislation. However, broadcasting firms hardly ever employ third-party consultants; rather, they always use their own, normally enormous in-house operation. Also, those lobbyists would not bother going to see the permanent secretary, because the permanent secretary would not be bright enough to understand the technicalities. Instead, they would go to the junior officials in the Department who do. None of that would be captured by this Bill.

Mark Durkan: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will not be tempted to wander away from the issues that we are meant to be dealing with in this group of amendments, but he is right to point out some of the flaws that exist elsewhere in part 1 of the Bill and to the wholesale escape by corporate lobbyists working on behalf of various bodies. Whether those lobbyists are working on behalf of allegedly public bodies, private commercial bodies or much larger international conglomerates, they should not be able to escape the scope of the Bill as lightly and handily as they are going to do. As the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon has pointed out, the Bill is framed in such a way that some people will simply be able to recast their business in order completely to escape being touched by the legislation.

Helen Goodman: Let me illustrate that point. I have just looked at my diary for this week. It contains six meetings with people from corporate bodies or trade associations, and six with people from what we might loosely call the voluntary sector. None of the first six would be caught by the provisions in the Bill, but all the second six would. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that is absolutely ridiculous?

Mark Durkan: I do. At risk of receiving a caution from the Chair, I must agree that my hon. Friend is contrasting the inadequate provisions in part 1 of the Bill with the egregious and excessive provisions in part 2. Many of us suspect that those charities, voluntary organisations and public advocacy campaign groups that will find themselves in line of danger under part 2 are being used as a human shield to protect those that should have been targeted in part 1 but have deliberately been given free license and allowed to escape. This part of the Bill, particularly in the light of some of the Government amendments, will say to those who might be sitting on the next big scandal, “Carry on regardless. Carry on happily. We don’t want to touch you, and we have deliberately framed this legislation so that it will not touch you.”

Peter Luff: As a former lobbyist and an honorary fellow of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, I have to say that it is actually worse than that. Unless the Government accept amendment 52, which would make it necessary for
	management consultancies, lawyers and accountant to register, lobbying will become much less transparent as a direct result of the Bill.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman makes a very pertinent point.
	This is why so many people are dissatisfied with the Bill, including bona fide, honest-to-goodness, up-front lobbyists who want to be able to conduct their business on good terms. They need to know that the register exists to ensure that they can conduct their business not only on good terms but on equal terms with anyone else who is competing to provide similar services, peddling similar influence and perhaps having an even greater effect on Government decisions on policy, on the framing of legislation, on programmes or on projects.
	I hope that we will come to the amendments that try to address other problems relating to the Bill, but I am speaking in support of those Opposition amendments that are properly seeking to change the definitions relating to consultant lobbying. My own amendment 161 would ensure that the Bill covered more people involved in commercial lobbying who provide either full-time or significant part-time lobbying services on behalf of what the Government call non-lobbying or mainly non-lobbying businesses, and that they too would need to register. Such a provision would protect those who meet those lobbyists, be they MPs, members of Select Committees, Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries, permanent secretaries or senior civil servants. I would like all of them to be scoped into the Bill, rather than it simply focusing on Ministers and permanent secretaries. They would all be better protected if the legislation were better cast.
	I am sorry that the Government have scrambled the Bill in this way. If we do not take the time now to get it right, many people will have to pay the price later. Some people will deservedly find themselves caught up in a scandal, but others who do not deserve it will also find themselves in that predicament, because we are deliberately leaving twilight zones in which people will bump into things that they did not realise were there. People might be told that certain things are okay under the legislation—just as people were told that certain things were okay under the expenses rules—only for a different assessment to be made following public scrutiny. We must be vigilant about the standards we are setting for ourselves and others. That means that we need to support the Opposition amendments, and particularly those tabled by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.
	I fully respect the points made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) about new clause 5, but I have problems with some of the details of the proposal, and not least with its implications for charities and other bodies. It also sticks to the narrow definition of consultant lobbying, even if it completely recasts that definition by what it subsequently goes on to propose. I understand that she tabled the new clause to make a point, and she has made a valid point very well. She has indicated that she will not press the new clause to a Division, and I will not press my amendment to a vote either.

Tracey Crouch: This has been a fascinating debate, and I shall not repeat the points that have already been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and other colleagues across the Committee.
	I want to bring some of my own experience to the Chamber. Fundamentally, what is wrong with this part of the Bill is that it does not reflect any kind of understanding of the lobbying industry, of which I am a proud ex-member.
	The lobbying industry has changed dramatically since I first joined it in 1998. I worked for a consultancy that, if it existed today, would be caught by the Bill’s provisions because it was a dedicated Government relations lobbying agency. However, the industry has changed and most public affairs firms are now part of wider communications groups, on which the Bill will have no impact. I worked in the industry between 1998 and 2003, and it gave me a fantastic opportunity to learn many things and to engage in the political process.
	We should be clear that the lobbying industry is important to a fair and democratic society. It is also important to us as Members of Parliament, in that it can help to inform and educate us on incredibly technical issues. We should not always view the industry with deep, dark suspicion. The only point in the debate that I have disagreed with so far was the description of lobbyists as mendacious and as performing some kind of dark arts. That is incredibly unfair, because most lobbyists are highly professional and very proud of what they do. They want transparency in their industry, and they want a level playing field. The Bill delivers neither. If anything, it could make the industry more opaque, and it will certainly not produce a more level playing field.
	I would like to give the House an example from my own experience. Between 2005 and 2010, I was head of public affairs for Aviva. It was known as Norwich Union when I joined it, but it subsequently changed its name. We had a large lobbying team here in the UK and in Europe. As I look around the Chamber, I can see many people whom I, as head of public affairs, probably would have lobbied.
	My lobbying team would not have been covered by the provisions in the Bill. We employed a major City law firm to provide specific counsel on legislative issues. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon has pointed out, such lawyers will not be covered by the Bill either. We also employed a consultancy that provided public affairs advice and was part of a wider group; it, too, would not be included in the Bill. We worked closely, too, with trade associations, which again would not be included. If we paid for research by a think-tank and lobbied on the outcome, that, too, would not be included in the Bill.
	It is therefore quite clear that this part of the Bill needs to be taken off the table and looked at again, particularly in respect of expanding the definitions. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Opposition Front-Bench team’s amendment, as does the Association of Professional Political Consultants, because it wants a level playing field. Those of us who have worked in the industry consider ourselves professional lobbyists, not just consultant lobbyists.

Therese Coffey: I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but does she agree that the transparency shown by publishing ministerial diaries, including the companies that Ministers meet and the purpose of the meetings, fulfils that role, and that trying to extend the law is effectively using a sledgehammer to crack a small nut, which concerns the PR industry in particular?

Tracey Crouch: I do not wish to be rude, but I think that that shows a real lack of understanding about the lobbying industry. A significant proportion of what lobbyists do does not relate to Ministers or permanent secretaries. In the entire 10 years for which I worked in the industry, I do not think that I once either arranged or attended a meeting with a permanent secretary. With great respect to current and former Ministers, that was very much the end process of whatever we were seeking to do. We would quite often meet civil servants to discuss incredibly technical issues that, by the time they reached the Minister’s desk, were probably already signed and agreed through the interactive relationships developed with those particular civil servants.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is not the job of a permanent secretary to do particular pieces of policy work; that person’s job is to run the Department.

Tracey Crouch: I quite agree, so it is not surprising that I did not meet a permanent secretary in any capacity during my lobbying days. It was not my job to advise them on how they ran their Department; it was my job to try to influence opinions and the legislative process with civil servants at a lower level, particularly on the very technical issues that typically arose in the insurance industry. It is quite clear that this aspect of the Bill is not fit for purpose and it would benefit from being broadened in definition to include all consultants, including both in-house consultants and those that are part of multi-agency firms.

Charlie Elphicke: My concern is as follows. If I am approached by a representative of lobbyists from Save the Children or, indeed, from the life insurance industry, in which my hon. Friend used to work, I will know what company they are from and who they represent; they will be in-house and I will know what they are about. On the other hand, if I am approached by a lobbyist from one of the big lobbying companies, I may not be entirely clear about whom they represent. My concern is to ensure that we have a sense of whom they are representing; when the lobbyists are in-house, we have a greater sense of clarity as to whom they represent.

Tracey Crouch: I feel as if I am being rude to my Back-Bench colleagues, but yet again I think that that demonstrates a lack of understanding about the lobbying industry. Only very rarely would a lobbying company or consultancy have a direct meeting with a Member of Parliament or Minister. Such companies are the facilitators of meetings for their clients, who quite often happen to be big companies. I remember when I was an in-house lobbyist having a meeting with my hon. Friend when he was an adviser to the shadow Treasury team on matters relating to European tax legislation. We need to be clear that the lobbying industry today provides a very different service and is a very different industry from what it was 10 or 15 years ago.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I agree with every word. On the subject of tax, however, I want to highlight one particular danger. A multinational company wanting to make representations to a Minister or a permanent secretary—that is very
	unlikely—is likely to be an accountancy firm, not a lobbying firm, but accountancy firms are specifically excluded from the Bill. It is a bizarre exclusion.

Tracey Crouch: I agree entirely with the principle to which my hon. Friend refers, but as it happens, we had tax experts in Aviva and we were able to use them. We did not need to employ accountancy firms, but we did on occasion need to employ experts from law firms. The problem with this part of the Bill is that it does not extend to that.
	We need to be clear that lobbying must be transparent and there needs to be a level playing field. At present, I am afraid that clause 1 and the first part of the Bill do not allow that to happen. I hope that my Front-Bench team are listening and hope that they recognise the genuine concern about whether the definition goes far enough. I hope they will consider expanding the definition either today or in later stages of the Bill’s passage to ensure both transparency and a level playing field.

Chris Bryant: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on her speech. I like the fact that she takes no hostages from among her own colleagues, betraying their ignorance and all. I entirely agree with her: there is no point in introducing a Bill that destroys the whole premise of decent, open, transparent lobbying in this country, because it is one of the fundamental precepts that inform the way we do our democratic business.
	Our legislation would be consistently weaker if people had no opportunity to lobby us. Let us face it: most of the time we are dealing not with issues on which we are the experts but those that are way beyond our normal ken, so it is important that people come here to inform our decisions.
	I would say, just as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, that it is very rare for a lobbyist to devote their energy to the permanent secretary, who will nearly always be entirely irrelevant to the process in hand. Normally, the Minister would be the person of last resort to whom a lobbyist would go because they would want to persuade members of a Select Committee, people sitting on the Bill Committee and all sorts of other people that need to be persuaded long before thinking of engaging with the Minister. Special advisers are essential to that process.

Paul Flynn: Before my hon. Friend goes into orbit in praising the saintly activities of the lobbying world, will he agree that the worst activities of lobbyists can be found among the corporate lobbyists, who buy advantage for the already advantaged? The purpose is to give extra access and extra influence to those who are already rich, privileged and wealthy. Is that not what we need transparency about?

Chris Bryant: I am not suggesting that all lobbyists are saints, but most of the world is somewhere between saints and sinners. Of course we want a level playing field. I do not want a corporation, by virtue of having deep pockets, to have a special advantage over those who do not have deep pockets, but I do not want to say that a corporation should not be able to put its case, simply because it is a corporation.
	I mentioned on Second Reading that when the mental health legislation was going through Parliament I would not have been a valuable, I hope, member of the Public Bill Committee if it had not been for Mind and other mental health charities, the British Medical Association and other organisations coming to lobby us. I have to say, too, that the pharmaceutical companies, which others may want to paint as the devil incarnate, had an informed voice to bring to the debate. In the end, I had to make a judgment—that is what I am paid to do—about where the right public interest lay. I think it right and proper, when it comes to this Bill, to ensure that everybody knows about all of that activity, not just a tiny proportion of it.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) is slightly wrong in what he suggests. It is true that we are debating clause 1, but many of the amendments in this group refer to clause 2, schedule 1 and other provisions. Those are the elements of the Bill that profoundly limit the effects that this so-called lobbying Bill would have. There are 15 Government amendments in the group, one of which is one of the most bizarre amendments I have come across. Amendment 84, which can found on page 667 of the amendment paper and was tabled by the Leader of the House, reads:
	“Clause 25, page 11, line 31, leave out from ‘lobbying’ to end of line 32.”
	If the amendment were accepted, clause 25 would simply read:
	“‘consultant lobbyist’” means a person who carries on the business of consultant lobbying”.
	If that is not a circular provision, I do not know what is. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said earlier that a very small net was being employed. This is not a net; it is fly-fishing. I can think of only one person who might be caught by it, and that is the Prince of Wales.

Paul Flynn: Hear, hear.

Chris Bryant: I do not believe that that is the aim of the Government’s legislation, although it may have suddenly got my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on board.

Anne Main: On a need-to-know basis, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not wish to use tortuous means to obtain correspondence from someone who says
	“I would prefer for my email not to be sent to the MPs” ,
	or, in my case, to a solicitor fighting against a proposal. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to see my report, because I was trying to find out what lobbying was going on. We should be able to know what is happening. I have no problem with lobbying—it is not a dark art—but I have a problem with things that are being concealed.

Chris Bryant: Absolutely. Indeed, let us get it all out in the open: I used to be a lobbyist. I used to lobby for the BBC in Brussels. All right, the Daily Mail hates me. That is just about every bad thing knocked into one. However, I believed that the work that I was doing had to be done openly, transparently and publicly, and I was entirely happy about that. The European Parliament
	has a register, everything must be declared openly, and it is all above board. I wish that we had the same arrangement here.
	In recent years I have worked with the UK Public Affairs Council, which now produces a voluntary register. It is online, and it is pretty good. It is possible to detect a fair amount of the lobbying that is going on, and to detect who represent what clients and so on. I fear that if the Bill is passed it will not be in the interests of the vast majority of the people who are currently signed up to an online voluntary register. The Bill means that they will not have to register, and it will not be in their interests to go the extra mile and sign up to the voluntary register, so we shall end up with less transparency rather than more.

Tom Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I am happy to give way to the Minister if he can assure me—he need only nod—that he will tell me how many organisations will be caught by the Bill. I have not seen him nod yet. I will not give way to him until I see a nod.

Tom Brake: indicated assent.

Chris Bryant: All right.

Tom Brake: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), will respond to him on that point. [Interruption.] However, I wanted him to explain why he felt that organisations that are currently on a voluntary register—there is no requirement for them to be on it—would automatically choose to cease to be on that register. Many consider that being on it is to their commercial advantage, because it is a unique selling point when it comes to working with their clients.

Chris Bryant: We now know that a Liberal Democrat nod really means a shake of the head. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to tell us how many organisations would be caught by the Bill, but now he says that the other Minister will answer my question. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West referred to albatrosses earlier. As I recall, in Coleridge’s poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” the mariner shoots the albatross, which then hung around the mariner’s neck until all the people involved on the ship had died. I fear for the Parliamentary Secretary. I fear that, charming and wonderful as she is, this Bill will be hanging around her neck, and the necks of several other Members, until they have all passed on, politically at least.
	Let me say this to the Minister. The reason many people will choose to opt out of the voluntary register on which they are listed at present is that there will now suddenly be a mandatory register to which only a tiny proportion of people will be required to sign up. Until the Government are prepared to say what proportion—

Tom Brake: rose—

Chris Bryant: If the Minister wishes to intervene, he should nod again.

Tom Brake: indicated assent.

Chris Bryant: Right—that is the second nod. I can tell the Minister that the voters will not be prepared to accept three nods and still get a shake of the head from the Liberal Democrats. I hope that this is a real nod.

Tom Brake: I can tell the hon. Gentleman the answer to his earlier question: 350 organisations will be covered. However, he has still not responded to my question. Will he explain why organisations that are currently on a voluntary register should decide to remove their names from it. What advantage would they gain?

Chris Bryant: It is not a question of the advantage that they would gain; it is a question of the disadvantage of being on the voluntary register. If the Government are to introduce one mandatory register, saying that it is all that is required by public society, of course such organisations will make that decision.

Thomas Docherty: The Deputy Leader of the House has just given a figure of 350. I suspect that the Government plucked that figure from Australia and Canada and bunged it into the impact assessment, and that it is not based on any knowledge of the United Kingdom industry.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is right. It is clear from clause 2—the amendments that we are considering relate partly to clause 2 and to paragraph 3 of schedule 1 —that any organisation whose main purpose is not lobbying, such as a legal firm, an accountancy firm of a broadcaster, will not be required to register at all. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon made a very good point when he said that the industry had changed in the last 10 years. Many Government relations companies that used to stand alone have been brought into wider companies that deal with public relations and communications of a much more general sort. Those organisations will not be required to register. Moreover, the words
	“in the course of a business”
	in clause 2 make it pretty clear that a large number of businesses will be able to opt out of the provision entirely.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the circular definition of a consultant lobbyist in amendment 84. Clause 2 states that the consultant lobbyist thus circularly defined “does” do certain things. It does not state that the lobbyist “might” do certain things. It is clear that the majority of consultant lobbyists who may not do such things, as circularly defined in clause 25 as amended, will also escape from being on the register. I think that that will knock several more of the 350 organisations off the register.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such is the paucity of the drafting of the Bill—cobbled together, I think, at the last minute—that the real danger is that even the people who the Government think do consultant lobbying do not do it in the terms of the Bill, and will therefore be excluded from the register. The Government may think that 350 organisations will be
	covered, but I think that that is a very dubious, dodgy number. I think that it is more likely to be 35 or three and a half or even three.

Mark Durkan: rose—

Geoffrey Cox: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and then to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, although he was unkind enough not to give way to me a second time.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about not just the existing paucity of the definition in the Bill, but about the tautology that we are being asked to introduce in the form of the circular definition in amendment 84. Would it not be more honest for the Government simply to propose that the Bill should define a consultant lobbyist as anyone who places an entry in the section of the Yellow Pages that is headed “Consultant Lobbyists”, and that those who do not so define themselves should be exempt?

Chris Bryant: I think that that would be slightly to treat the legislation with contempt—so I am right up there with the hon. Gentleman.

Geoffrey Cox: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the Leader of the House’s amendments 93 and 94, which have just been drawn to my attention. On the face of it, those important amendments would go a considerable way towards dealing with the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and I have outlined. They would widen the scope, and would mean that only incidental lobbying activities would escape. That could not be said of any specialist department, so it seems clear that the Government are going some way towards responding to some of the concerns that have been expressed. If the hon. Gentleman has not read the amendments, he should have a look at them and think about how far they go.

Chris Bryant: Of course I have read the amendments on pages 658 and 659, but I think they would have exactly the opposite effect from what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. The concept of a non-lobbying activity is as interesting as the concept of a lobbying activity. That is why I think this Bill provides so many grey areas, and that, in turn, is why I can see that it would recommend itself to lawyers—to lawyers, I repeat.

Jon Trickett: The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) is a lawyer.

Chris Bryant: Yes, that is the point I am making. Because of those grey areas, a great deal of business is likely to come from this proposed legislation.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: Of course I will, although I am aware that not even the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues think he knows how this industry works.

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman forcefully makes the point that this would be a matter for lawyers, but on my reading of some of the Opposition amendments, they would bring vicars within the ambit of the Bill. That would be a very odd and unintended result, would it not?

Chris Bryant: I think I am the only ex-vicar in the Chamber. It is perfectly legitimate for people to lobby, even vicars—and, for that matter, tarts. I have no problem with vicars and tarts lobbying. For that matter, I have no problem with vicars and tarts lobbying together on a piece of legislation, if that is what they want to do. That would be absolutely legitimate, but I just want to have a level playing field.
	If somebody is being paid to lobby on behalf of others, I think there is a higher requirement in respect of our being able to know, but I just say this to the Government: they have brought forward a Bill that is so narrowly drawn in its first part that I think it will do far more harm than good.
	This Bill should not be advanced as a Government Bill. It should be a private Member’s Bill. It should be advanced on a non-partisan basis. It is the kind of legislation where we desperately require people to come in and give evidence before we start considering amendments, so that Members such as the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) who has just tried to make a pointed intervention on me would be able to learn from the experience of those who are actually—

Charlie Elphicke: rose—

Chris Bryant: Oh, here comes another intervention—on bishops, doubtless.

Charlie Elphicke: My concern with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that this should be a private Member’s Bill is that he and I both know that the process for that is tortuous because this House does not lack for wreckers who would destroy any such moves to any kind of legislation that would be more considered and sensible, which is a shame.

Chris Bryant: I have been campaigning for a very long time to get rid of the entirely mendacious private Member’s Bill process and to replace it with a system that works better, but I do think this Bill would be better advanced on a cross-party basis without Government-Opposition divide and on the basis of practical experience of how the industry actually works. There is a danger that we will introduce bad legislation here, and we may well—irony of ironies—have to resort to the House of Lords to try to improve it because the Government nearly always have a majority on any legislation in this House.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is making his case rumbustiously, but I just wonder whether I could bring him back to the problems of definition and the limitations of this Bill by giving a couple of examples. I spent 16 years as a Treasury civil servant, and we were subject to highly formalised lobbying every year before the Budget from the Scotch Whisky Association, the tobacco people, the cider people, the motor manufacturers and so forth, and in the case of the UK offshore operators,
	we had a whole joint committee between the industry and the civil service in order to work out the north sea fiscal regime—

Martin Caton: Order. That was a very long intervention.

Chris Bryant: Yes, but it was a very good one, because it does make the point. I do not think my hon. Friend was the permanent secretary or the Minister—although she was a Minister later on. At that time, however, she was just a humble—

Helen Goodman: Lowly.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend was a lowly—although perhaps not a very humble—Treasury official, and the point is well made.

Chi Onwurah: Government Members have suggested that Government amendments 92 and 93 clarify matters, but does my hon. Friend agree that they actually have the opposite effect, because whereas before the Government were badly defining what lobbying activities are, they are now badly defining everything else that lobbying activities are not?

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend expresses far better than I could exactly what I was trying to say earlier, and she is absolutely right.
	Let us consider how two areas would be affected by the Bill and the proposed amendments. The first of them is the introduction of droit de suite. When the European Union insisted that every country in Europe had to have an artists’ resale right, the Government at the time—a Labour Government—were wholeheartedly opposed. However, some members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee were wholeheartedly in favour and wanted to persuade the Government to take a different course of action, which we thought was going to be inevitable anyway.
	At the time the Design and Artists Copyright Society, the body that administers copyright for artists, was lobbying very hard to have droit de suite introduced in the UK, and on a generous basis—more generous than that originally intended by the UK. So far as I am aware, it never lobbied the permanent secretary, but it certainly lobbied all the Culture, Media and Sport Committee members and a lot of junior DCMS and Treasury officials, and in the end it won its case. It would not be caught by this Bill, however, because its primary purpose is not to lobby, but to administer a system of collecting rates for artists. My argument is that that is wholly inappropriate. The body that was opposed to the introduction of such a right was the body that represents all the art houses and art galleries. It, too, would not be covered by this Bill, but I think it should be.
	Communications with Members of Parliament should be included, as the new clause of the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) would allow, just as much as communications with Ministers or anybody else should, because knowing who is trying to influence proposed legislation, and who tables amendments
	and who does not table amendments and so on, is a vital part of knowing what is going on in the lobbying business.
	Let us consider, too, recent events in the newspaper industry. I think all Members would agree that it has been ferociously lobbying for quite some time, sometimes through direct means and sometimes through indirect means. The chairman of the Press Complaints Commission is Lord Hunt. I am not sure whether he is still the chairman, but he is a Member of the other House. I am not sure whether he would be included in this legislation by virtue of being a Member of the other House, but he has certainly been lobbying on behalf of a whole set of other newspaper agencies, and he is paid to do so. The Government may say, “Yes, he probably would be included, as that is consultant lobbying.”

Tom Brake: indicated assent.

Chris Bryant: The Minister is nodding, so Lord Hunt would be included, but what about Peter Wright? He is the former editor of The Mail on Sunday, but he is now working solely on lobbying on this business on behalf not just of The Mail on Sunday, but other newspapers, too. Would he also be included? I do not think so, as he is a full-time employee of what was Associated Newspapers.
	What about Lord Black of Brentwood? He is an executive director of the Telegraph Media Group. He has tabled amendments in the House of Lords and visited Ministers and so forth. He has been lobbying ferociously as well. Would he be included by virtue of the Government’s legislation? I suspect not, but I think most people in the country would think that that kind of activity should be publicly available so that we can all know the basis on which Ministers are making decisions.

Alan Whitehead: I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with me about this process. A person who accepts that they are a consultant lobbyist under the definition in clause 25 might then refer to clause 2(1)(a) and say, “Well, I make communications,” and might then refer to clause 2(3) and say “Well, I make communications but I do not make communications to a Minister of the Crown or a permanent secretary and I will agree not to,” and since there is no further definition of what a consultant lobbyist is, their decision not to talk to a permanent secretary—which they would not do anyway, perhaps—would exclude them from needing to be on the register.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It does not have to stop there. The lobbyist can carry on, as paragraph 3 of schedule 1 states:
	“A person does not carry on the business of consultant lobbying if…the person…carries on a business which is mainly a non-lobbying business”.
	They can opt out in hundreds of different ways.

Thomas Docherty: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Is he aware that Lord Black not only uses his position directly but awards a parliamentary pass to a senior lobbyist of the Telegraph Media Group, who can then wander freely through the corridors of Parliament lobbying MPs and peers?

Chris Bryant: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. At the risk of travelling too far from the amendment, the real danger of corruption in the Palace of Westminster and the legislature lies at the other end of the building. It is much easier for a lobbyist to persuade a peer quietly to table an amendment in the House of Lords than it is to persuade someone to table an amendment in the House of Commons. That needs to be looked at. [Interruption.] And, for that matter, to hand out passes. The decision about who should get a pass should be solely about security—it should not be about access.

Anne Main: That is exactly the point I was trying to make in subsection (3) of new clause 5, which states that
	“‘government’ includes…members and staff of either House of Parliament or of a devolved legislature”.
	Access through staff, who then chat to the MP or peer, is just as valuable, but it is not covered by the Bill.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry, I have obviously not made it clear: I love the hon. Lady. Well, I will not do so when it comes to the general election, but I love her new clause, because it deals with many of the points that need to be addressed. Our constituents want a clear, open, transparent system without any dodgy handing out of passes to staff who are not really working for a Member but for a third party and so on.

Paul Flynn: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case of Lord Blencathra, who was reported to the parliamentary authorities as a representative and lobbyist for the Cayman Islands? The House of Lords authorities decided that there was a prima facie case against him, but then decided not to act, although action is still possible in future. However, what he was doing was certainly against the rules in this House. Should not the Bill address the scandal of allowing permissive rules in the House of Lords because, it is said, its members are not paid? However, lobbying is going on there in a dangerous way, which is grossly unfair to the population as a whole.

Chris Bryant: What about electing the House of Lords? That is quite a good idea. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have always thought that it is wrong of the House of Commons simply to say that the rules of the other House should be written by the other House. To be honest, the House of Lords is part of the legislature—as much as we are—and if it is to retain that power, it is important that that is done within strict limits.

Lady Hermon: It is very kind and perfectly charming of the hon. Gentleman to accept an intervention.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman is a stickler for detail and for getting things spot on, so may I ask him to correct a technical error, which I am sure was a slip of the tongue on Second Reading last week? The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke before him, and he referred to him as the “Irish Member”. As a member of the Democratic Unionist party, I do not think that the hon. Member for East Antrim would regard himself as Irish but truly British—true, true British.

Chris Bryant: I do not always get things right, it should be said—that is a well-established fact. In this case, I am more than happy to apologise to the
	hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) via the hon. Lady, who represents a seat in Northern Ireland but is as British and, quite possibly, more British than I am.
	I commend amendment 48, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who chairs the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform. It meets many of the concerns that many ordinary members of the public would express if they saw the legislation, and certainly the concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House. Preparing someone to appear before a Select Committee is lobbying just as much as other activities. When I worked for the BBC we regularly acted out appearances before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I always got to play Gerald Kaufman, which was one of the more enjoyable parts of my working career.
	We need to catch more of the lobbying business than is currently caught in the Bill, and amendment 48 does so. In particular, it removes a loophole in clause 2 by deleting the phrase,
	“in the course of a business”.
	It looks innocuous, but it is a massive loophole.
	There are many other loopholes to which I have referred, and some hon. Members have referred to amendments that they hope will be accepted. As I said to the hon. Member for St Albans, I like new clause 5, but there is one problem in it, as it pretends that MPs are Ministers. If it were redrafted, it would meet the Bill’s requirements rather better. Finally, if the Government know that the legislation is so flawed that they have had to table many amendments—we are considering 15 Government amendments in this first group—it would make far more sense to say, “Let’s draw stumps. We all want a piece of legislation. Some parts of the Bill may be serviceable. Let’s give it to the Select Committee and suggest that it draft proper legislation that will work and meet the requirements of the whole House.” If we did so, we would enact a piece of legislation that would last not just until the general election but beyond and make our democratic system stronger rather than weaker.

John McDonnell: I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Consensus seems to be emerging among Members across the Committee, with the exception of Government Ministers. We want legislation that reflects, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, the reality of the lobbying industry as it operates at the moment.
	Amendment 2, which was tabled by Labour spokespeople, amendments 48 and 49, which were tabled by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, amendment 161, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and new clause 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), all seek to achieve some understanding in government that the legislation should reflect the real world. On Second Reading, one of the best speeches was by the hon. Member for St Albans, who talked about her personal experience of what lobbying does in a particular constituency and the impact that it can
	have on one’s constituents. We want legislation that protects the individual Member of Parliament as well as his or her constituents.
	I raised the example in my own constituency of the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow and what has happened over the past three decades, but more intensively over the past decade. The homes of some 10,000 people are at risk; 50,000 people, and perhaps more, are at risk of the atmosphere being poisoned in such a way that air pollution far exceeds European limits; 2 million people will experience increased noise across London. There was lobbying from the aviation industry, particularly BAA, formerly the British Airports Authority. A lobbying firm was employed, but its activities were largely a smokescreen for the real lobbying by BAA employees. As I said on Second Reading, many of them had passes to enter the Department for Transport and meet officials. The Bill does not catch that aspect of lobbying, as we have heard in every interpretation by Members on both sides of the Committee.
	Amendment 48, however, is rather inadequate, as its definition of lobbying relates to the lobbying of Ministers and permanent secretaries, and does not relate in any way to the real world of lobbying. In the BAA lobby on the third runway there was, as I said, wining and dining of Ministers and senior civil servants, but that was a smokescreen for the intensive lobbying of fairly junior civil servants who undertook the assessments of traffic growth, air pollution impacts, noise impacts and the logistical arrangements around the airport. By the time that the reports that they prepared landed on the desks of the permanent secretary and of Ministers the decision was virtually made.

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend illustrates the complexity of the situation. The staff of BAA would have been accompanied by planning consultants, highways consultants and lawyers, who also would have been on the payroll to lobby for the third runway and therefore should be included in our consideration if we want a proper Bill.

John McDonnell: That is an extremely valid point. In the real world of lobbying, I have experience of that constituency issue, with BAA employees employed virtually full-time—yes, with a range of experts—intensively lobbying relatively junior staff in the Department for Transport and the Treasury, building up a head of steam around a particular demand from BAA that eventually shapes the decision made by Ministers. My understanding of the debate so far is that such lobbying would not be covered by the Bill and BAA in its new form, as Heathrow airport, would not be caught by it.
	Things have moved on. Governments are increasingly outsourcing the preparation of the material that will eventually enable Ministers to take decisions. That outsourcing relies upon the commissioning of external experts—not within Government, but often academics and others—and in addition to that, the setting up of various commissions. The Howard Davies commission is consulting various organisations on behalf of Government about the expansion of aviation in London and the south-east, especially the issues surrounding the expansion of Heathrow. My understanding of the Bill is that the lobbying of the external advisers and members of such commissions is also not caught by the legislation.
	Members may have experienced that process, but let me explain. An intensive lobbying exercise is being undertaken by the aviation industry across the country. Businesses that own individual airports are intensively lobbying Howard Davies’s commission, and they are lobbying external experts commissioned to undertake pieces of work, because obviously they are looking to expand their particular airport. I do not believe, and I am happy if the Minister wants to advise me differently, that any of that lobbying will be caught by the Bill.
	The plea from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford, for St Albans and for Foyle—right across the piece—was that, if we are going to legislate, we must legislate in the real world, and we are not doing so. We are going through an exercise that people will think is a waste of time, and many will find it disingenuous. Some may think that, when we have ticked the box, we have sorted out lobbying, but the real-world lobbying will go on as before.
	As the Prime Minister rightly said, lobbying is open to the potential for scandal. There have been scandals. What causes me anxiety is that I am prevented from protecting my constituents from a heavily resourced and effective internal lobbying machine within an organisation that could destroy parts of my community and the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of people in west London. The Bill does not meet the purpose. It does not rise to the challenge that the Prime Minister set us, which is to ensure that we have a transparent lobbying process. That transparency can, we hope, enable us to have some element of probity within the system of lobbying overall.
	I take what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said. The criticism has come from all parts of the Committee. There must be some recognition from Government that these legislative proposals do not stack up. I know that by way of a taunt to the Leader of the House what happened in the case of the NHS legislation was mentioned earlier, but I think the idea of a short pause while we try to get some consensus discussions going is the most constructive way forward. In that way we can learn the lessons from the lobbying industry itself. Members of this House across the parties have had years of experience of lobbying, so we can get some decent legislation in place, otherwise we will bring ourselves into potential disrepute. Members of the public who expect us to represent and protect them will think we are not doing our jobs effectively.
	I urge the Government to listen to their own Back Benchers as much as to those on the Opposition Benches who have no axe to grind. Let us see whether we can have some cross-party discussions over the next week or two. We should not allow the Bill leave this House and expect the House of Lords to sort it out, as usual. That is a derogation of our duty. We must do the work here and send the best Bill we possibly can to the other place, because that is what we are paid for.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful, Mr Caton, to catch your eye in this debate.
	Many colleagues have commented on the drafting of the Bill. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the merits of the private Member’s Bill. Last year I introduced a
	private Member’s Bill on this very subject, supported by our Front-Bench team. I was lucky to work with Simon Patrick and the formidable Kate Emms on the drafting of that Bill. May I helpfully suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that the Clerks of the House might be well qualified to help the Government draft a more effective and fully baked Bill than the one before us?
	I gently point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda that he mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) by name. I know that my hon. Friend is not a properly read parliamentarian, but I am fairly confident that according to “Erskine May” we are not allowed to mention the name of a right hon. Member, even in a quotation, but I am sure that he did not mean to do so. As he is a new boy in this place, we will let that one pass.
	The Government have been caught by their own phenomenally tight definition. I shall speak mainly about Opposition amendment 18, which would remove paragraph 3(1)(a) and (b) of schedule 1, which is ambiguous and creates uncertainty. Sub-paragraph (1) creates a loophole which cripples the aims of the Bill. On Second Reading and in the debate today, I have been struck by the fact that the Government consistently believe that, if they say that a measure is not intended to have a particular effect, that somehow means that it will not have that effect.
	The Government were correct one time. As the Deputy Leader of the House said earlier, the Government are not seeking to capture lobbyists—they are seeking to capture 1% of those who would otherwise be defined as lobbyists. Credit is due to the Government; that is the one element that is consistent with their intentions. Unfortunately, sub-paragraph (1) does not capture even that 1%. Sub-paragraph (1)(a) excludes
	“a business which is mainly a non-lobbying business”,
	and sub-paragraph (1)(b) excludes a business whose lobbying efforts are
	“an insubstantial proportion of that business.”
	That would mean, for example, that big tobacco firms did not have to declare their in-house lobbying activities, but a small firm of public affairs professionals or consultants campaigning on behalf of, say, Action on Smoking and Health, would have to do so. I will return to that point later. The term “non-lobbying business” is insubstantial and too vague and does not have any real meaning.
	The Government’s attempt to try to correct this error, amendment 93, which says
	“consists mainly of non-lobbying”,
	does not improve matters in the slightest. Unfortunately, what the Government by their own definition mean by lobbying is purely that direct communication with Ministers of the Crown and permanent secretaries. I could understand if the Government were defining lobbying as being what we think of as lobbying. It is interesting the number of Members on both sides of the House who describe themselves as lobbyists. Unfortunately, I suspect that none of those so-called lobbyists are actually lobbyists under the Government’s own definition. They have defeated themselves by drawing their amendments so closely.
	You do not have to take my word for it, Mr Caton. Iain Anderson, deputy chairman of the Association of Professional Political Consultants, an organisation of which I used to be a member, says:
	“There cannot be a grey area. I cannot work out whether my business and our members should be working out for ourselves whether we should be registering. That is a completely crazy situation.”
	Unfortunately for the Government, such vague terms and ambiguity is how loopholes, on which lawyers become even richer, are formed. This morning, the Financial Timescalled on the Government to withdraw the Bill and look again at their proposals. The editorial says that this is simply not good law making. This loophole in the Government’s proposals shows just how little they understand about the lobbying profession. The chief executive of a major company may lobby the Prime Minister for an hour during a cosy kitchen supper, which I understand starts at £100,000 a go, and have a huge impact on Government policy.
	Let us take a fictitious example related to tobacco. An adviser may have a big impact on the Government’s policy, much bigger than the Secretary of State for Health for example, but because his business is mainly non-lobbying, he does not have to register. That is the influence that goes on behind closed doors, whereas small businesses that are lobbying for change, those SMEs that work as public affairs consultants, have to bear the burden of regulation. As has already been touched upon, the burden is horrific. The impact assessment is fundamentally flawed. As I said earlier, it has simply been transposed from the systems in Australia and Canada. It has been assumed that that is how our system works. Given that the Minister and our civil servants had not had a single meeting, until last week, with any part of the lobbying industry, I am bemused as to how they came to that conclusion.
	I appreciate that the Minister is getting her advice from the Treasury Whip, but I hope that when she replies she will spell out which lobbying professionals agree with her definition and think that Australia and Canada are a suitable comparator. As someone who has worked for eight years in the industry, it strikes me that civil servants have licked their finger, stuck it in the air and come up with a figure of—[Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House chunters from a sedentary position. Perhaps he wishes to add something to the debate. Apparently not. We are going to get the usual curmudgeonly Deputy Leader of the House role; the second Liberal Democrat to do that with such skill and grace in the last few years, and heckle anyone who has the temerity to disagree with his views.

Chi Onwurah: I support the excellent comments that my hon. Friend is making. Will he set himself the challenge of explaining why a Government who set such store in supporting small and medium enterprises, should, as he describes, put such a regulatory and financial burden upon them?

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who spoke eloquently from the Front Bench during proceedings on my private Member’s Bill last year, setting out why the Opposition want to see workable legislation. I am more than happy to set out what is wrong with the impact assessment. It uses the Government’s figures and is confused. It says that the register, which covers only consultant lobbyists, will cost £500,000 to set up and a further £200,000 to run each year. That is according to the Government’s own figures, so it must be right. Almost all the firms who are members of the
	APPC are SMEs. I would be amazed if there were one that employed more than 250 people in total. Most are firms with between 20 and 50 employees, so these are not large firms. They are the entrepreneurial firms that we hear so much about from Government Members. But the Government and their civil servants have made up some rash figures. They have said that there are about 1,100 lobbying consultants in this country. I am still not clear where that figure has come from. I think they have taken the APPC list and accepted that that is probably pretty much every one who is “a lobbyist”. They have then said that, if the cost is £500,000, that can be shared by 1,000, which I assume is the 1,000 lobbyists. However, the Bill contradicts that. It says that payment is per firm—the Deputy Leader of the House graciously nods in agreement—and probably only 10 to 20 firms will be caught by the current definition. I am not a great mathematician, but if one takes £500,000 and divides it by 20, that is not £500. It is significantly more. That is just the start-up cost in the first year. That is a disproportionate and huge impact on small businesses.

Andy Sawford: I am trying to make some sense of a pretty nonsensical set of proposals. On my hon. Friend’s point about how the costs would stack up, there are some public affairs companies that are global, such as Edelman and Weber Shandwick. Does he have a view on whether there should be some variation in how the costs are apportioned to the small—perhaps one-person band—lobby company relative to some of these very large companies?

Thomas Docherty: I will just touch on the issue of some of the very large firms. One of the huge flaws is the issue of non-lobbying business—that a firm that is not a lobbying company would not be captured. One example is DLA Piper, a well-regarded law firm and lobbying communication consultancy; it is exactly the type of company that could probably afford to pay something. We are talking about £25,000 per company as the cost of the register, which is not the £500 that the Government’s impact assessment claims. DLA Piper is exempt. The irony about the Front-Bench team that we have today is that the reason why the Deputy Prime Minister’s fingerprints are not on the Bill is that his wife previously worked for DLA Piper. The Deputy Prime Minister, correctly in my view, recused himself from the whole process. Under the Bill as it has been drawn up, however, DLA Piper is not covered. I hope that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is reflecting on that irony.

Stephen Phillips: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Does he share my concern that unless the Government listen to some of the comments made in the Committee this afternoon, we may issue an open invitation to those who might be caught by the Bill to organise their affairs so that they do not have to register, as they will not fall within the Bill’s definitions as they stand?

Thomas Docherty: That is a perceptive intervention with which I wholeheartedly agree. I bear lawyers no ill will, but it is correct that all that will happen is that some of the smaller third-party companies that might be caught and faced with this hefty bill will simply move that element of their business to the likes of DLA Piper or MHP Communications, which I will come on to.
	The Deputy Leader of the House asked a genuine question when he said that surely companies would still wish to register through the APPC register or elsewhere. The answer to that genuine question is this: why would they when they are not required to and there is no commercial benefit in doing so? Having met the APPC on a couple of occasions—I was briefly a member of its board—I know that its huge concern is that its members will say, “We’re paying money already for regulation and red tape, so why would we choose to take on this second voluntary code when the Government themselves don’t think it’s necessary?”

Tom Brake: It was indeed a genuine question I asked, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered it. He asks why organisations would continue to maintain their entry on a voluntary register under what the Government propose, but of course those organisations have already entered a voluntary register, which they were not required to do.

Thomas Docherty: With your indulgence, Sir Roger, let me try to answer what I think is a genuine intervention from the Deputy Leader of the House. I was involved in the APPC back in 2008-09, when the previous Government effectively told the industry that it was drinking in the last chance saloon. In the previous Parliament, we had the Public Administration Committee report that, as I recall, recommended a statutory register if the industry did not improve public confidence and Parliament’s confidence in it. I made the point that those firms that are working in the correct manner and striving to improve their reputation would join a voluntary body, which they duly did, and the UK Public Affairs Council was set up to try to bring those things together. Regrettably, it was clear that the small number of dubious lobbying firms—dubious individuals, to be more accurate—would choose not to. Many of those who sign up to the voluntary register do so because they want to demonstrate that they are playing to the highest ethical standards and that there is bureaucracy and paperwork involved. It is not a case of chaps sitting around and signing off each other’s practices.
	Firms also made the point that, when asked by potential clients whether they are a member of a register, they would simply say, “Well, we don’t do that activity.” In my three years as a consultant lobbyist—I understand that the Government do not accept my definition of a lobbyist—I do not recall once having a meeting with a permanent secretary or Minister, so my firm would have had no need to register. That is why I think that there is a real danger that those firms would say, “We don’t undertake that activity, so the Government and Parliament do not think we need to register,” and therefore the provisions will fall away.

Andy Sawford: I am trying to understand the intention of the Bill as well as its effect. My understanding of the companies that currently participate in the voluntary register is that effectively they are the good guys, although I am sure that we could find examples of where they have not always met the highest standards. What we should really be trying to do, with regard to bringing transparency, is identifying people currently operating outside any ability for us to see what their line of work is or their willingness to be transparent and bring them into some sphere of registration.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as ever—I can see why the good Scots of Corby made such an excellent choice last year—and very perceptive. It goes to the heart of the debate about the Government’s intention and what lobbying is. To be fair, the Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House have set out what they are trying to achieve. The first clause does exactly what they want it to do, which is capture only third-party lobbyists. As the Deputy Leader of the House has said, all they are interested in is a scandal that has never happened, and frankly is never going to happen, and so they do nothing to tackle all the scandals we have had. If I understand it correctly—the two Ministers are present, so they can correct me if I get this wrong—all they are interested in doing is ensuring that if a consultant lobbyist sits in a room with a Minister, that Minister, who one would hope is a fairly bright person, is left in no doubt that that person is a lobbyist, as if he could not have worked that out beforehand—

Tom Brake: And who they were lobbying for.

Thomas Docherty: Yes, but that does nothing to tackle what the rest of the House thinks are the real scandals, such as those we have seen even in the past three or four years: Fred Michel, Fijigate, Lords for hire, as exposed by The Sunday Times, MPs like cabs for hire—I could go on. None of those scandals would be caught or stopped by the Bill.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that some of the cases he just referred to would be covered by things like the MPs’ code of conduct and that we do not require a register of lobbyists to address some of those issues?

Thomas Docherty: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to set out which of the scandals—MPs for hire, Fred Michel, Fijigate or whatever—are covered by the codes, I would be happy to hear him do so. The problem is that they are not. We have already heard some eloquent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and others showing that that is not the case.

Mark Field: Is not part of the problem that some of the so-called scandals to which the hon. Gentleman refers involved people impersonating lobbyists and so did not involve lobbying in any meaningful way at all? With regard to his earlier exchanges with the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), I must say that I find the idea that those who sign up for the voluntary register are necessarily the good guys rather naive. I think that the Government are trying to deal with a genuine concern in this regard and should be congratulated on doing so.

Thomas Docherty: I must say that I think the PRU needs to get a better briefing sorted out, because I am not sure what genuine concerns the hon. Gentleman refers to. Perhaps his inbox is different from mine, but in the three and a bit years that I have been in Parliament not a single constituent has contacted me to say, “I’m really concerned that the permanent secretary at the Government Department, when sitting in a room, does
	not know who the person sitting opposite him is and who his clients are.” Actually, given his constituency, I suspect that his inbox is very different from mine.

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would also be a scandal if people got the impression, no doubt completely erroneously, that he was speaking at such length so that we do not reach later amendments on the amendment paper? I am sure that is not the case, but we have to give the Bill an awful lot of scrutiny tonight, so I gently say to him that it would be enormously helpful if he would bear that in mind when making his comments.

Thomas Docherty: I can honestly confirm that I am a parliamentary bore and that I am speaking at this great length because I can bore on the subject, and I think that Members on both sides of the Committee would agree that I am demonstrating that with some aplomb. The hon. Lady makes a serious point about the lack of time that the Government have made available. I deeply regret that the Bill has not gone upstairs, where you would have ably chaired the proceedings, Sir Roger—you would have kept us all in order, as you do so well as Chairman of the Panel of Chairs—and that all we have is four and a half hours—

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that he is, and has been, absolutely in order. Were it otherwise, he would have been stopped.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful to be admonished for staying in order.
	The hon. Lady makes a serious point. We have only four and a half or five hours to consider a huge piece of legislation. Frankly, this should have been scrutinised much better. I fail to see what constitutional imperative has brought it to the Floor of the House. I hope that the other place will do a genuine job of forcing the Government to come back and make some proper amendments, because I think that there are some real issues.
	These are not issues that just I have concerns about. We have had the most bizarre and unlikely coalition. The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency has said of the Bill:
	“It only applies to consultant lobbyists whose business is mainly lobbying. It would exclude those for whom lobbying is only a small part of the business. This could apply to a large number of significant lobbyists-for-hire”.
	At the other end of the debate, the Public Relations Consultants Association polled its own members and found that only 1% of activity was covered from under 20% of the organisation’s concern. Even the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who I see in his place paying close attention, has said:
	“The Bill tries to exclude people whose main business is not lobbying, but it does not define what constitutes a mainly non-lobbying business.”
	The hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) has also criticised the loophole, saying:
	“I suspect all that this new rule will do is ensure that in some instances big corporate interests will bring their lobbying activity back ‘in house’. Instead of hiring a public affairs consultancy, the big defence, banking and energy interests will give the work to
	their public affairs department. And because their main business is defence, or banking, or energy, they can safely ignore those provisions of the Bill.”
	It is a dreadful state of affairs when two Government Back Benchers—I use the word “Government” slightly loosely, perhaps—are criticising the Bill. I hope the Minister will take on board the genuine concerns that have been expressed.
	We have been told that the intention is not to exclude people. To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), let me give one example of a significant public affairs consultancy—MHP Communications. I should declare that I have met MHP Communications representatives, who have seen me about developments in my constituency. They conducted themselves appropriately at all times.

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend illustrates the complexity of the industry well. MHP Communications derived originally from AS Biss, which was a public affairs-focused agency. It merged with a media company to become Mandate—I am not sure what the balance of that new company would have been—and has now become MHP. It has taken lots of different forms.
	We refer to the different registers; the PRCA code, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations government affairs group’s code and the Association of Professional Political Consultants code relate to different kinds of companies. That is why catching APPC members, of whom we are all very aware and whose business is on the web for us to see, does not get us far at all in terms of transparency.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the heart of the problem. Let me quote what MHP itself has said:
	“do we work for a ‘non-lobbying business’? In our case, MHP Communications is a full service communications consultancy. We operate a single bottom line approach, and so do not break out the work of our public affairs division. Employees are employees; there is no ‘MHP Public Affairs Ltd’. And the work of MHP is certainly not mainly concerned with lobbying. Even if we were to limit ourselves to our public affairs team, the definition talks about actively lobbying, in the sense of seeking to persuade…members of the Government as well as officials—and this is not ‘mainly’ what we do all day.”
	That is the problem with the clause and the Government’s attempt to fix it. It all gets circular—even if we accept that MHP is a lobbying entity, lobbying is defined purely as communicating with a Minister of the Crown and a permanent secretary.
	Let us take special advisers, who are not covered at all; we all know that they often have more influence than the Under-Secretary of State. Under the Government’s plan, the lobbyist will be perfectly entitled to have lengthy and detailed influential discussions with a special adviser, and that would not be covered by the Bill. However, the lobbyist could meet the Under-Secretary of State and that meeting would be. Which meeting would be the real problem? One needs look only at the debacle of News International and Fred Michel to see the kind of scandal that can happen.

John Thurso: I commend to the hon. Gentleman amendment 45 on that subject, which is in the group after next. Hopefully, we will get to it tonight.

Thomas Docherty: Amendment 45 is a genuine attempt to address at least some of the problem, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of another issue. I am a big fan of Babcock, a major employer of my constituents and his; some 3,500 people work at Rosyth dockyard. The Government believe that simply listing a meeting with Mr John Gardner, the public affairs director for Babcock, would somehow show transparency. However, as the hon. Gentleman and I know, Babcock has six or seven significant arms, including its nuclear engineering division, which I suspect is of particular interest to him; its defence business, which is of interest to my constituency; the rail division; and the facilities management division. It would not be clear to anybody what such a meeting would be about and what transparency there would be.
	Let me bring my remarks to a timely close. Our amendment 18 would sort the issue out in a constructive, well drafted manner. We are grateful for the assistance of the able Clerks upstairs.
	Vicars would not be covered; the Church of England’s public affairs team would be covered, but not the individual vicar, as they would not be paid to lobby. Parishioners would not be covered either and nor would someone giving evidence to a Select Committee. That would impinge on parliamentary privilege, which we hope the Government accept should not be a matter for the courts. We also recognise that someone responding to a Government request for information should not be covered.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House and the Minister have listened closely and take away helpful advice from both sides and that the issue can be dealt with in this place, rather than being sorted out yet again in the other place.

Chloe Smith: I rise to address the Opposition amendments and to speak in favour of those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I shall also address other points raised in the debate.
	I begin with the amendments from Opposition Front Benchers, which would replace “consultant lobbying” with “professional lobbying” throughout part 1. The amendments define “professional lobbying” as undertaking lobbying
	“on behalf of a client, or…on behalf of an employer.”
	Amendment 18 provides a list of exemptions from the Opposition’s broad definition of lobbying outlined in amendments 19, 20 and 21.
	The Opposition’s intention is clear, but unfortunately their drafting lacks similar clarity. They have diligently—some might say single-mindedly or simple-mindedly—substituted the term “consultant lobbying” with “professional lobbying”, but notwithstanding the years of experience demonstrated by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), their concept of professional lobbying appears not to have been sufficiently thoroughly considered. It shocks me that after 13 years of thinking about these things, they have brought forward so little.
	The Government’s proposals for a register are designed to address the specific problem that we have identified: it is not always clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists when they meet Ministers and permanent secretaries.

Tracey Crouch: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Association of Professional Political Consultants itself accepts the amendments that would replace “consultant lobbyist” with “professional lobbyist”.

Chloe Smith: I am delighted to have taken my hon. Friend’s intervention because I will come on in detail to why those amendments are deficient. I have no doubt that they are supported by others who have made their voices known in this debate, but that does not make them a solution to a specifically identified problem. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife kindly confirmed that our Bill does what it sets out to do.
	The context is that this Government have for the first time made it clear to the public exactly who Ministers and permanent secretaries meet. The Opposition appear to be trying to solve a different problem, but they have failed clearly to articulate what it is. What exactly is the rationale for a register that requires the local vicar to sign up as a professional lobbyist? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) seems to think that that is okay. However, if this how Labour Members think they might get back in touch, they will not achieve it by doing this, and it is rather weak for them to think so. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife rejects the idea that the local vicar might need to sign up as a professional, but he ought to read his papers more closely.
	The proposed exceptions from the Opposition’s somewhat unwieldy definition include some sensible exclusions from their concept of professional lobbying but also some major loopholes. For example, an exemption for those who lobby but are not “remunerated” is an invitation to the less scrupulous elements of the industry instead to receive payment in kind. The Government’s provisions do not allow such weak evasion.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Minister give way?

Chloe Smith: Once.

Thomas Docherty: I had better make it good, then. The Minister said that the amendments are badly drafted—obviously, Mr Patrick and his team are excellent—but they have been drafted with the su pport of the PRCA, the APPC, the CIPR and the ALT. What does she know that everyone in the industry, on both sides of the argument, does not know?

Chloe Smith: I made it clear at the outset that the Government are seeking to address a slightly different and very well-defined problem. I do not have the years of experience of working as a lobbyist that the hon. Gentleman appears to be advocating I should have, but it is clear to me that a robust definition of “lobbying” is essential to the integrity of any register. The amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers suggest that they have struggled and ultimately failed to meet the prerequisite for successful lobbying regulation even on their own terms.

Chris Bryant: Will the Minister clarify who is included and who is excluded? Can she confirm that in the case of News Corp trying to lobby on the full ownership of BSkyB, none of the senior executives from the company
	would be included in the register, none of the public affairs people employed full time by the company would be included, the legal company that it used to do much of its lobbying would not be included, and nor, for that matter, would the public affairs company be included, because most of the work that it does is general communications? According to this Bill, nobody would have been included in the register in that instance, which many thought was profoundly corrupt.

Chloe Smith: The hon. Gentleman fails to take into account what this Government have done to ensure that Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries are transparent and the reforms made since then to ensure that meetings and contacts with news editors are also reported. Labour did nothing about that in its 13 years. It is time that we did do something, and that is what we are bringing before the Committee. I urge right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to withdraw their lead amendment and the others that sit with it.
	Amendments 9 and 48 on advice and meeting facilitation would alter the definition of lobbying provided by clause 2 so that it included the facilitation of meetings and provision of advice in relation to lobbying. Let me repeat that the Government have been clear that the register is intended to address a specific problem—that it is not always clear whose interests are being represented by consultant lobbyists when they meet Ministers and permanent secretaries. We want to ensure that that that level of information can be looked at by citizens, not by the Ministers and permanent secretaries themselves, whom I credit with enough wiles and wit to know who they are meeting.
	The register is intended further to enhance transparency within the context of this far more open approach to Government than has previously existed. The inclusion of the provision of advice in the definition of lobbying will not necessarily assist in the specific task that we are doing in this regard. I acknowledge that the work of many so-called lobbyists includes the provision of advice and the setting up of meetings, but once those meetings take place it is already clear to the public whose interests are being represented. I am therefore not persuaded of the value of extending the definition to the provision of advice, and I urge hon. Members to withdraw these amendments.
	Amendments 8 and 27, which deal with in-house lobbying, would amend clause 2 to remove the term
	“on behalf of another person”
	from the definition of lobbying. I think that that is intended to bring with it the effect that the register be extended to apply to in-house lobbyists in addition to consultant lobbyists. As I have repeatedly reminded the Opposition and the Committee, the steps we have taken to enhance transparency at these previously opaque levels have already revealed the interaction between Ministers and external organisations. We proactively publish details of all Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ meetings. It is therefore difficult to appreciate what value a register of in-house lobbyists would provide. It could merely duplicate the information that we already publish. Of course, we do publish that information. Will Opposition Front Benchers confirm in this debate what they have failed to confirm before—whether they would publish their own meetings and diaries? They have consistently failed to meet that challenge, and that is weak.
	We have been clear, instead, that the register is intended further to extend the transparency we have introduced by addressing the specific problem in hand. The Opposition have failed to articulate what problem would be addressed by introducing a register of in-house lobbyists. Such a register may have been of use in relation to previous Administrations whose engagement with external organisations was less open, but it is not necessary now. The Canadian system, which does cover in-house lobbyists, costs about £3 million a year to operate. That system was deemed necessary because the Canadians do not publish details of Ministers’ meetings—but, quite simply, we do. As such, we have designed a register and made proposals accordingly. I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
	Amendment 52 would amend schedule 1 to remove the de minimis exemption that we included in paragraph 3 to exclude those who undertake only occasional lobbying from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists. This is covered in Government amendments that I will deal with later. I acknowledge the work of the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on this. I assure hon. Members that the Government are keen to listen to the concerns expressed by his Committee and others that the exemption in paragraph 3 would perhaps exclude large multi-disciplinary firms. That was never our intention, and our amendment to the paragraph will clarify that. As amended, the exemption would exclude only those who happen to communicate with the Government in a manner incidental to their normal professional activities. Multi-disciplinary firms that run consultant lobbying operations and lobby in a manner that is not incidental to their other activities will be required to register. I can therefore reassure hon. Members that the amended exemption provides a necessary and appropriate exclusion for those who undertake only incidental lobbying, but it would not be enjoyed by multi-disciplinary firms with active and substantive consultant lobbying wings.
	Let me turn to a pair of Opposition amendments that are in this group but, intriguingly, were not spoken about—amendments 25 and 26. They would entirely remove the exemption that we have included in paragraph 7 to ensure that the normal activity of altruistic organisations such as charities is excluded from the scope of the Bill. We all know, of course, that the Charities Commission already imposes strict rules governing how charities lobby, and there is also a specific and onerous regime governing charitable status. Despite that, the Opposition want to remove the exemption for bodies such as charities and require them to register. Interestingly, though, they are not seeking to remove the exemption for the normal activity of trade. The Opposition are thus proposing that charities register as professional lobbyists in relation to their normal activity, but that trade unions do not. I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
	New clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), closely resembles the proposals made by the various industry representative bodies. I have had some time to look into the detail of such proposals, and I would like to put on record a couple of the issues raised by such an approach. The new clause would redefine “consultant lobbying” such that the activity must take place in the course of business for the purpose of “influencing government” or
	“advising others how to influence government”.
	Under this definition, a huge number of individuals and organisations would be subject to the provisions relating to the register. Furthermore, the definition expands what is meant by consultant lobbying to include the provision of advice to others seeking to influence Government. I do not understand how the problem under discussion would be solved by requiring the registration of those who advise others—I have already addressed that point. If people are made more effective in communicating their messages, that is a matter for them. Of course, it must be made transparent to everybody who receives those communications who they represent, which is what the Bill seeks to address.
	The new clause goes on to provide an exceptionally wide definition of those who would have to register. Anyone who attempts to influence, or provide advice on influencing, every level of government—local, central and devolved, parliamentarians and their staff, and public authorities—would be required to register. This includes those working in a charitable, not-for-profit capacity and those in a voluntary position. The new clause includes a number of exemptions and it would be worthwhile exploring them.

Anne Main: My concern is that the Bill is so narrowly defined it is not worth having unless we expand it, although part of me does not wish to expand it at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife have said that it is influence of those at lower levels, not of the permanent secretary or the Minister, that is most important, but that is not captured in the Bill and that is what concerns many of us.

Chloe Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for rising to make that point, which is valuable and is addressed by some of the amendments.
	The Bill is straightforward about those who should be covered by our register. I repeat that we are being very specific about the transparency we are seeking to achieve. We regard Ministers and permanent secretaries as the key decision makers. I cannot state that much more simply.
	New clause 5 brings to mind some unusual examples that we should consider in terms of public interest. A volunteer playgroup manager would have to register under the new clause if they wrote to their local authority about dog fouling near a church and requesting that it cleans it up. A charity that wants to inspire underprivileged children through sport would have to register in order to ask the mayor for permission to use a playing field. Furthermore, the founder of a small business who wants to write to their MP to complain that their waste collection is substandard would have to register as a lobbyist in order to do so. I do not think that those are good examples.

Chris Bryant: Will the Minister give way?

Chloe Smith: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already and I must conclude, because there is plenty of work before the Committee tonight.
	I have reservations about new clause 5, although I respect the serious work that Members have done with lobbying representatives. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans not to press new clause 5.
	Amendment 161, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), would make all lobbying businesses, not just those that lobby on behalf of third parties, liable for registration. As I have said, it is difficult to appreciate what value a register of in-house lobbyists would provide. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.
	Let me turn to the Government amendments in this group. It is clear that they have been spectacularly misunderstood by Labour Front Benchers. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who laughs loudest, claims to care for small businesses but appears not to have read the papers in preparation for this debate.
	Amendments 76, 77, 81 to 85, 92 and 96 to 98 are designed to exclude the smallest organisations from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists. They do so by amending the definition of consultant lobbying such that it includes only those who are registered under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which I am sure the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) has read in great detail.
	The Government are committed to ensuring that small businesses are not subject to disproportionate burdens. An exclusion for those small businesses that are not VAT registered from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists will ensure that whatever burden may be associated with registration will not be placed on them. The VAT registration represents a clear threshold.

Chi Onwurah: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Chloe Smith: Would the hon. Lady like to explain VAT registration?

Chi Onwurah: It would be a great pleasure to explain VAT registration, but not at this point in time. Is the hon. Lady saying that all companies that pay VAT registration are large companies, or is she acknowledging that many small businesses are registered for VAT?

Chloe Smith: I am suggesting a clear, simple and recognised threshold to provide a guide for where to put a de minimis provision.
	Amendment 77 will alter clause 2 to include the registration of a person under the VAT Act as a further requirement to be satisfied in the definition of carrying on the business of consultant lobbying. That will exclude those who are not VAT registered from the requirement to register as a consultant lobbyist.
	Amendment 82 will remove the provision in clause 22 exempting those who are not VAT registered from the requirement to pay the subscription charge relating to entry on the register.
	Amendment 83 will provide that regulations could be made allowing HMRC to share its records relating to registration under the VAT Act with a registrar. Clearly, that is an important resource to assist the registrar. Associated amendments make the necessary refinements to the references to employees throughout this part of the Bill. The exclusion of those who are not VAT registered from the requirement to register means that a number of references to employees should be adjusted
	to recognise that employees can never be VAT registered for their employer, a fact that I fear the hon. Member for Hemsworth knew nothing about.
	Another group of Government amendments relates to the definition of incidental lobbying.

Roger Gale: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is a considerable amount of noise coming mainly from behind the Chair, mostly from people who have not paid any attention whatsoever to the debate. The Committee wishes to hear not only the Minister, but the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman in her reply, which has yet to follow.

Chloe Smith: Thank you, Sir Roger. I will be as quick as I can in making a few points about Government amendments.
	It has always been the Government’s intention that those who communicate with Government in a manner incidental to their normal professional activity should not be required to register as consultant lobbyists. These are not the people or organisations that this register is intended to capture. Let me be clear that it is our intention that multidisciplinary firms that run consultant lobbying operations and that lobby in a manner that is not merely incidental to their other activities should be captured. These are the exact professional consultant lobbyists that this register is intended to capture.
	We have listened to those who suggested that the exemption in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 was too broad and should be refined, including the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Our amendments 91, 93, 94 and 95 will refine that paragraph by substituting the insubstantial proportion test with one that focuses on incidental lobbying. Specifically, paragraph 3 will provide that a person does not carry on the business of consultant lobbying if they are part of a non-lobbying organisation or if the lobbying communication they make is incidental to their normal non-lobbying activity.
	In conclusion, we are proposing not a fully blown regulator for the industry, but a solution to an identified problem. I am sure that Members throughout the House will have read the US federal lobbying regulation manual, “The Lobbying Manual”, which runs to 894 pages. That is what we wish to avoid. I therefore oppose various amendments but support those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I look forward to hearing what the Opposition think they can do better now than they did for the past 13 years.

Chi Onwurah: It is testimony to the ineptitude of the Government that, after months of delay, they have introduced a lobbying Bill that covers just 1% of lobbyists and still manages to be full of loopholes.
	We have heard a lot today about the importance of lobbying in our democracy. We have heard that it is nothing to be ashamed of and that transparency is a good thing that is welcomed by the industry. There is a consensus on both sides of the Committee about that, or so I had thought until I read the Bill and the Government amendments. I was entirely baffled by many of the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs in the clause and the accompanying schedule. It is plain that the Government were no clearer, because they tabled their own set of amendments. However, those amendments
	—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I have read the amendments, despite what the Minister says from a sedentary position, and rather than clearing up the confusion that the Government have created, they create more confusion. In this Bill, it is difficult to distinguish between what is the result of poor drafting and what is the result of poor judgment.
	Ministers appear to have created a loophole whereby the vast majority of the lobbying industry can avoid having to register at all. Even the current voluntary registers capture more of the industry than the proposals would. The Deputy Leader of the House estimated in this debate that 350 companies would be caught by the Bill. George Kidd, the acting chair of the UK Public Affairs Council, has estimated that 100 would be caught. At least 15,000 companies operate as lobbyists, so it is clear that the Bill captures a minute proportion of them.
	I find the Minister’s assertions that the Bill will not have an impact on the voluntary registers hard to believe. The Government talk about the great impact of regulation and law-making, but they seem to be saying that this Bill, which defines lobbying—it defines it badly, but it defines it nevertheless—will have no impact whatever on the existing lobbying registers. They have very little respect for the impact that the Bill will have, intended or otherwise.
	I urge the Government to listen to their own Back Benchers, who have said that the Bill does not reflect an understanding of what lobbying is. The Bill has also been described as a net that is badly drawn and an albatross. I agree with the Financial Times, which said today, less figuratively but equally accurately, that the Bill is “not good lawmaking”. The whole industry agrees with that, rejects the Government proposals and supports the intent of the Opposition amendments. That is why we will press amendments 2 and 9 to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 205, Noes 268.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment made: 76, page1,line6,leave out from ‘person’ to end of line 7.—(Miss Smith.)

Gareth Thomas: I beg to move amendment 3, page1,line6,leave out ‘or’ and insert ‘and’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 4, page1,line8,after ‘lobbyists’, insert—
	‘and
	(c) the person has signed up to the Register’s Code of Conduct.’.
	Amendment 136, in clause3,page2,line36,at end add—
	‘(3) The Minister is under a duty to ensure the independence of the Registrar.
	(4) The Minister is under a duty to ensure the Registrar is adequately financed and resourced so that the Registrar can exercise its functions under this Part.’.
	Amendment 31,page53,line1, in schedule 2, after ‘Minister’, insert—
	‘after consultation with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons.’.
	Amendment 138,page53,line2, at end insert—
	‘(1A) The power of the Minister under sub-paragraph (1) is exercisable only following the approval of a proposed appointment by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.
	Amendment 34, in clause4,page3,line21,at end insert—
	‘(c) the approximate value of the registered person’s spending on their lobbying activities for each quarter.’.
	Amendment 36, in clause5,page3,line37,after ‘information’, insert ‘and spending on lobbying’.
	Amendment 137, page3,line38,at end insert—
	‘(aa) details of any communications or meetings with a Minister of the Crown or Permanent Secretary that do not fall within section 2(3), and.’.
	Amendment 56, page3,line47,at end add—
	‘(c) if the registered person engaged in lobbying in the quarter in return for payment (whether or not the payment has been received), the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person; and
	(d) if the registered person received payment in the quarter to engage in lobbying (whether or not the lobbying has been done) the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person.’.
	Amendment 152, page3,line47,at end add—
	‘(c) if the registered person received payment in the quarter to engage in lobbying (whether or not the lobbying has been done) the amount of payment received.’.
	Amendment 37, page3,line47,at end insert—
	‘(4) Spending on lobbying for each quarter is the approximate value of the amount a registered person spends on their lobbying activity for each quarter.’.
	Amendment 40, in clause10,page5,line28,leave out from ‘offence’ to end of line 30.
	Amendment 42, in clause14,page7,line39,at end insert—
	‘or breaches the code of conduct’.
	Amendment 43, in clause22,page10,line31,leave out ‘seek to’.
	New clause 1—Duty to apply a code of conduct—
	‘(1) The Registrar shall, after wide consultation with relevant stakeholders including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons, prepare a code of conduct with which all registered persons will be required to comply, and may produce revised codes from time to time;
	(2) The Secretary of State must lay any professional lobbying code of conduct before Parliament.
	(3) Any code shall provide that any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and parliamentarians are strictly forbidden.
	(4) An organisation or person included on the register which contravenes the provisions of the code of conduct shall be liable to civil penalties as set out in Section 14.’.
	New clause 2—Disclosure of names of professional lobbyists—
	‘The Government must disclose the names of all persons who are professional lobbyists that work for them, including senior persons—
	(a) who are employed directly with the UK Government;
	(b) who are formally employed by the political party or parties that form the Government;
	(c) who are employed on a temporary basis as consultants; and
	(d) contractors.’.
	New clause 7—Professional lobbyists taking up employment in government—
	‘(1) Any professional lobbyist registered under section 1 taking up a senior position in Government will—
	(a) have their appointment scrutinised by a Committee, and
	(b) have restrictions placed on their activities as set out in subsection (3).
	(2) “Senior position in Government” means a position as senior civil servant or their equivalent.
	(3) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders, may make regulations about the activities set out in subsection (1)(b).’.
	Clause stand part.

Gareth Thomas: I rise to speak to the amendments tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Given the lack of time for debate that Ministers are allowing for this part of the Bill, let me rattle through the case for the amendments.
	Amendment 3—the lead amendment in the group—is a probing amendment to explore why Ministers do not want the employer of a lobbyist to be revealed. We were led to believe that the motivation behind the Bill was to make the lobbying industry more transparent. Making it harder to understand who the employer of a person engaged in consultant lobbying is will hardly achieve that objective.
	Let us take the example of the lobbying firm that has provided so much of the backdrop to debates on the Bill. If Crosby Textor suddenly decided that, after all, it is a firm of consultant lobbyists, the individuals working as consultant lobbyists for Crosby Textor would not, under the Bill, need to record by whom they are employed.
	Given the widespread concerns about what and who Crosby Textor lobbies for, it seems reasonable that the individual consultant lobbyists who work for Crosby Textor should reveal who employs them. The Opposition want transparency, and the Minister says she wants the same thing. We therefore want to hear more on why Ministers do not believe that revealing employers is required.
	In speaking to amendment 4, I shall also refer to new clause 1 and amendment 42. Unless the Minister makes a dramatic speech, the Opposition will press amendment 4 to a Division. New clause 1, and amendments 4 and 42, require the establishment of a code of conduct. Such a code of conduct would be introduced after full consultation with all relevant stakeholders. It would have as its top line the need to avoid any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and parliamentarians. It would also, of course, be available for parliamentary scrutiny.
	The absence of a code of conduct from the Bill means there is currently no mechanism for removing or taking other sanctions against consultants who act in an unethical manner. Indeed, as the excellent Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has pointed out, if there is no code of conduct at the end of the Bill’s passage through both Houses, we will have the bizarre situation whereby the registrar can punish lateness in providing or submitting information, but cannot punish unethical behaviour. Arguably, the absence of a code of conduct means that some on the register will describe themselves as registered or approved without having to meet any minimum standards.

Andy Sawford: Given the role of the Association of Professional Political Consultants on standards within the industry, the bizarre consequence of the Bill could be that organisations that are self-regulated will be less regulated than they are currently.

Gareth Thomas: I fear that my hon. Friend’s intervention strikes a chord. I will come on to some of the points made by the Association of Professional Political Consultants shortly. Gavin Devine, the chief executive of one of the big lobbying firms, says:
	“there is a risk that the register will give a kitemark or endorsement to some who do not deserve it.”
	I read the APPC code of conduct, to which my hon. Friend has just referred, with interest. One key element is that
	“practitioners”—
	lobbyists who have signed up to the code—
	“must use reasonable endeavours to satisfy themselves of the truth and accuracy of all statements…by or on behalf of clients to institutions of government.”
	I struggle to understand why Ministers would not want to ensure that all consultant lobbyists ensure their clients tell the truth to them. A code of conduct with such a provision, properly policed, would help to raise the bar—raise the standards—of the whole industry, rather than just those who subscribe to the APPC code.
	Consultant lobbyists who sign up the APPC code are expected to be open in disclosing the identity of their clients and must not misrepresent their interests. Having a code of conduct with such a provision would help to ensure that Ministers and MPs would know who was
	trying to meet us and allow us to explore whether there were other motives for consultant lobbyists asking for information or advocating particular causes. It seems hardly unreasonable for such a basic standard of behaviour to be expected of all lobbyists covered by the legislation.
	The APPC code requires practitioners have a duty to advise their clients if they think they are about to commit illegal or unethical acts. They have a duty to refuse to act for such a client if the client persists. It is surely not unreasonable, and not too burdensome on the consultant lobbyist, to expect lobbyists to be able to abide by such a requirement in a code of conduct. Ministers need to explain why such reasonable requirements are so burdensome that they cannot be included in a code of conduct, or why they do not think we need to uphold, or ask consultant lobbyists to uphold, such basic standards of behaviour.

Richard Fuller: Before the issue of burden is appropriate, there comes the question of efficacy, and a comparison between self-regulation in a code of conduct and a Government-managed code of conduct. What evidence can the hon. Gentleman bring to say that a Government-managed code of conduct is better than a peer group trying to maintain the integrity of their business?

Gareth Thomas: The advantage of a statutory code of conduct is that it covers everybody. The problem with a voluntary code of conduct is that it covers only those who choose to submit themselves to it. Given the concerns about the lobbying industry—some of them unfair—surely it makes sense to have a code of conduct that everybody signs up to, after proper consultation, so that we achieve a basic standard of behaviour.

Richard Fuller: I appreciate that point, but one could argue that with an industry-based code of conduct to which people can voluntarily associate, peer group pressure and recognition will arise from people coming together to say, “We are approved in this way”. In some ways that might be a superior alternative to a Government registrar that is open to burdensome bureaucratic processes where, by the time they are resolved, people do not know what the issues are. In an area such as this, which is so open to public scrutiny, and the scrutiny of MPs and others, the pressures on a voluntary code would surely be even greater than they are for many other sectors of the economy.

Gareth Thomas: I hear the point the hon. Gentleman makes, but I am sure he will have realised in the course of his research for this debate that there is not just one voluntary code prepared by the APPC, but a number. Although one must commend the efforts of the individuals who have initiated such codes, along with the firms and individuals who have signed up to them, surely it makes sense for everybody to sign up to one clear code of conduct, so that everybody knows what the basic standards are and nobody can be confused about whether certain principles apply in one code of conduct or whether a particular lobbyist is subscribing to another set of principles. That would create clarity for the consultant lobbyist and their client—and for us as the House, therefore—about what is expected of those who seek to engage with us.

Andy Sawford: The discussion seems to be going against the grain of recent experience and, when it comes to regulation in the UK, what I think would enjoy cross-party support. In the case of organisations such as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and many other health organisations, the regulatory role has been split from the membership role. The regulatory role has emphasised a code of conduct and enforcement of standards, whereas the representative membership role has been about advocating for the profession. The two roles are quite different. The voluntary side is about working together, mutual support, peer support and advocating for the role that a profession plays in public policy making; the regulatory role is about ensuring that we can have confidence in the standards of that industry.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes an important point. One way to have transparency and clarity and to minimise the burden of regulation for the industry would be to ensure one clear code of conduct and therefore one clear set of principles that everybody has to sign up to in order to do business.
	Another provision in the APPC code—one that seems eminently sensible, at least on the face of it—says that
	“practitioners”—
	that is, lobbyists—
	“must not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims to clients about”
	what they can do for them. That is hardly an unreasonable or burdensome principle to have in a code of conduct either, so I ask again: why do Ministers not want such a basic principle covered in a clear code of conduct? The APPC code contains other suggestions that we might take forward, including the proposal that
	“Political practitioners must not…Make any award or payment in money or in kind (including equity in a member firm)…to any member of…the National Assembly of Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Greater London Authority”.
	As I understand the drafting of the Bill, Ministers have not gone so far as to cover those bodies. Perhaps the Minister can use her response to this debate as an opportunity to explain why a code of conduct should not cover those organisations as well.
	Including such requirements or versions of them—I do not want to be prescriptive; there should be proper consultation with all stakeholders about what should be in a code of conduct—would help to raise the standards of the whole profession and, as a result, give the registrar the means to begin to challenge any poor behaviour in the industry that he or she might come across.
	New clause 2 would help to ensure proper oversight and better public scrutiny of any potential conflicts of interest when senior roles are taken up in Government by people who were—or, indeed, perhaps still are—lobbyists. It would require the Government to disclose the names of any professional lobbyists who work for them, including those employed directly by the Government and those employed by the political parties that form the Government. The new clause would help to prevent a situation in which the country did not know definitively whether a lobbyist working at the heart of government for a political party, with access to the inner sanctums of
	No. 10 and No. 11, was at the same time lobbying on behalf of commercial interests such as big tobacco or the alcohol industry.
	It is surely worth drawing the Committee’s attention to the scandal surrounding Lynton Crosby. The reason that that will not go away as an issue for the Conservatives is that the country does not know whether he is lobbying Ministers on behalf of any big commercial business groups here in the UK. New clause 2—coupled with other amendments to widen the definition of lobbying and to require an estimate of expenditure on lobbying activity—would help to tease out whether Mr Crosby was able to use his position working for the Conservative party to raise the concerns of other clients that he or his business might have.
	The issues relating to Lynton Crosby raise the question of whether other lobbyists are employed, perhaps part time, to work for the Government while separately working for their clients to lobby Ministers, permanent secretaries, other senior civil servants or special advisers. New clause 2 is a sensible proposal that would help to make transparent the role of lobbyists who pass from an area of commercial life to become more actively engaged in public life as well.
	Big tobacco appears to have successfully exerted considerable influence on Ministers recently. Similarly, minimum alcohol pricing seems to have been dropped as a major Government priority. The presence in the Conservative party of a lobbyist who has access to No. 10, who is notorious in other countries for his other interests and who will not, at first glance, be covered by the legislation does not help to ease people’s fears that Ministers are not being quite so straightforward in their professed commitment to transparency as they might be.

Sarah Newton: The hon. Gentleman clearly sees the new clause as providing some kind of Lynton Crosby moment. Perhaps I can put him out of his misery by reminding him that the Prime Minister has made it clear that Lynton Crosby’s role was to help the Conservative party win the next election—that and that alone. Any meeting along the lines that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting or implying would quite properly be covered by existing rules on the disclosure of who meets whom. This is a complete red herring.

Gareth Thomas: With all due respect to the hon. Lady, I do not share her view. New clause 2 would help to prevent any similar concern—

Sarah Newton: rose—

Gareth Thomas: Just let me try to answer the question a little further. The new clause would stop the ongoing concern around Lynton Crosby’s role. I accept that the Conservative party is going to need all the help it can get at the next election, but we need to look further ahead in regard to the future of the lobbying industry. I gently suggest that new clause 2 would prevent further media storms of the kind that has evolved around Lynton Crosby’s role.

Sarah Newton: The hon. Gentleman seems keen to create a media storm around Lynton Crosby’s involvement, but it could not have been made more clear that he has
	an election role. He is involved in work on polling data, and the Prime Minister has made it extremely clear that he is not involved in policy development at all. He would therefore not be involved in the kind of lobbying that the hon. Gentleman is referring to. It would be interesting to find out whether Labour is going to apply the same standards to the team that it will undoubtedly be employing and has employed in the past for the purpose of winning general elections.

Gareth Thomas: If Lynton Crosby is only doing a bit of analytical work on polling data, I would gently suggest that the Conservative party is paying rather a lot of money for that service. If the hon. Lady votes with us to ensure that new clause 2 becomes part of the Bill, I put it to her that when we form the next Government, as we surely will do, we will of course be covered by its provisions.

Andy Sawford: Let me clarify my interpretation of the debate on the amendments to which my hon. Friend is speaking. The general tone of the discussion from the Opposition Benches has been about the need to enhance transparency. There is no suggestion in the initiative that the organisations that might be encompassed by a proper regulatory code are engaged in something that is in any way wrong. I think that Opposition Members are therefore quite right to seek to broaden the provisions. I wonder whether Government Members do not protest too much and whether, in a sense, they have something to hide. There may be nothing wrong in the actions of Linton Crosby, but as far as the public are concerned—and I hope this is parliamentary, Sir Roger—it stinks. Nobody should have anything to fear from transparency if they are doing nothing wrong.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes the perfectly reasonable point that new clause 2 is an attempt to prevent the sort of concerns that have arisen, going wider than our Benches and our parties, about the role of Mr Crosby. New clause 2 seems to me to be a perfectly sensible provision to prevent any similar situation from happening in future.
	New clause 7 is designed to make provision for professional lobbyists taking up employment in government. It deals with similar territory, albeit on a slightly different issue, to new clause 2. It would similarly deal with the potential conflicts of interest that can arise when a lobbyist seeks to take up a senior position in government. It is quite possible that someone with considerable skill and expertise who is working as a lobbyist at the moment might secure an offer to work as a senior civil servant. Such a person who has worked in a senior position in government before and has been seeking to widen their career profile might now successfully seek to return to a senior position in government. Having a system in place, which is what new clause 7 allows for, to check that there are no conflicts of interest around such employment is surely sensible and would help to build trust in the new appointment. Together with new clause 2, that new clause would allow the relevant Committee to probe whether there were any reasons to be concerned about any ongoing commercial lobbying interests that such a person might have. I say gently to Government Members that the new clause could have helped to prevent the ongoing concern about Mr Crosby’s role
	and his access within No. 10, so I commend it to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who intervened on me earlier.
	The most appropriate Committee would perhaps be the excellent Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. It has a mix of cross-party talent among its membership and it could explore with the relevant individual whether there were any potential conflicts of interest and, if not, how the situation should be handled, leaving the individual free to go about their public role, with the worry and concern that something improper is somehow going on and is attached to them no longer being an issue.

Graham Allen: It is very generous of my hon. Friend to offer the creation of a more effective Bill to the tender mercies of my Select Committee, but we are not looking for that job. There is a process whereby a special Committee can be created in order to review a Bill effectively and pre-legislatively. It is also important from my hon. Friend’s point of view, however, that the Opposition make it clear that pre-legislative scrutiny, which has barely taken place in this case, must become part of the Standing Orders of this House so that every Bill as a matter of course—apart from in emergencies—goes through proper pre-legislative scrutiny. This must not be a convention gifted to us by courtesy of the Government of the day, of whichever political colour, but must be something that this House does as of right to every appropriate Bill.

Gareth Thomas: I agree that pre-legislative scrutiny would have been extremely useful in respect of the Bill. New clause 7 seeks to create a more distinct scrutinising role for a Committee of the House in the event of any concern about a commercial lobbyist who takes up a senior position in government, and my hon. Friend’s Committee might be the appropriate one to establish whether there are any conflicts of interest and then put them to bed. I certainly share his aspiration, indeed determination, to ensure that more pre-legislative scrutiny takes place.
	Amendment 31 seeks to probe the Government over the appointment of the registrar. It is crucial for whoever performs that role to enjoy the confidence of as wide a cross-section of political life as is possible, and it would not be good enough for the Government simply to pick one of their friends or cronies. We believe that allowing my hon. Friend’s Committee to be involved in the appointment would ensure that the most appropriate and most independent person was appointed, thus providing an important safeguard. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give a commitment in that regard.
	Amendment 34, and the consequential amendments 36 and 37, underline our view that information about spending on lobbying should be available for scrutiny. It would be useful to hear from Ministers why they do not think that we should know how much is being spent on lobbying for a particular cause at any one time. In the United States, an approximate good-faith estimate of the amounts that are spent must be published every quarter. It is surely right, in the interests of transparency, for the public to be able to make a judgment about how much is being spent on trying to secure particular outcomes at particular times.
	We know from today’s media reports—thanks to a leak of confidential documents from Philip Morris International—that huge sums are, on occasion, spent on lobbying in pursuit of particular ends. Philip Morris appears to have spent well over £1 million and employed some 160 people in an attempt to keep a proposed tobacco products directive from coming to fruition. Apparently, more than 230 Members of the European Parliament were met at least once. Freedom of information documents have revealed that Philip Morris was not alone among the tobacco giants in wanting to stop the proposed directive, but in just that one instance the picture is of a mammoth and very expensive lobbying operation.
	I think that Philip Morris is perfectly entitled to lobby, but I also think that we are entitled to know for what it is lobbying and why, and how much it is spending in pursuit of its own interests. Our amendments seek to tease out the scale of the finance that is devoted to lobbying on particular issues at any one time. That would help to increase the transparency of the discussions that legislators have about particular proposals, and would improve our governance as a result.
	Amendment 40 seeks to delete the self-incrimination defence that the Bill currently allows lobbyists to use in order to avoid answering questions asked by the registrar. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s thinking. We believe that the inclusion of the self-incrimination defence restricts the registrar’s ability to get to the truth. Like so much of the Bill in its current form, clause 10 casts a shadow over the Government’s aspiration for more transparency in the lobbying industry, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why the defence is necessary.
	Amendment 43 cuts to the heart of the concern of many outside this House as to whether the registrar can be self-financing. There is a widespread belief that far fewer lobbyists will have to register than the Government estimate. Their estimate differs greatly from those of outside experts. Witnesses appearing before the Select Committee suggested only 300 would need to be registered, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) pointed out, the estimates sometimes sink to as low as 100. The Government’s impact assessment, however, suggests between 550 and 1,000 consultant lobbyists would need to register.
	If the Government are wrong and all the expert witnesses are right about that, the registrar could be faced with a substantial cost gap, and that would have to be picked up by the public purse. The Government seem to be very relaxed about wasting money, as they have happily written off the disastrous IT projects for universal credit and borrowed billions of pounds to fund the welfare costs of those who cannot find jobs, but it would be useful to hear from the Minister how the apparent fairy tale of a budget for the registrar that the impact assessment suggests has been cobbled together. What is the thinking behind the budget? How have these estimates been arrived at?
	Our amendment underlines the point that the public should not have to pay for the regulation of lobbying. If the Government are sensible and accept the definition of lobbying that the majority of those outside the House—and, I suspect, inside this House who have actually studied the Bill—believe is appropriate, there is no reason why the public purse will need to fund any of the costs of the registrar.
	We believe that these amendments will improve the Bill, and I commend them to the Committee.

Lady Hermon: It is a lovely surprise to be called to speak so early in this debate. First, I must say that I am absolutely delighted that the Leader of the House is present, particularly as amendments 136 and 138 in my name and those of other hon. Members were prompted by his comments on Second Reading, when he said, with great enthusiasm:
	“To ensure the independence of the system, the register will be administered and enforced by an independent registrar of consultant lobbyists”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 176.]
	His use of the phrases “independent registrar” and “independence of the system” fascinated me because I read the Bill very carefully from beginning to end and those phrases never appear in it. Instead, the Bill states that the registrar is to be appointed by the Minister—a term which, of course, includes the Secretary of State—but, it is stated in paragraph 3(6) of schedule 2, the poor old registrar can also be dismissed by the Minister
	“if the Minister is satisfied that the Registrar is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform the functions of the office.”
	So the Minister does not even have to have reasonable cause to dismiss the registrar. He does not have to have reasonable suspicion or reasonable belief. Under the Bill as currently drafted, the Minister appoints the registrar and can dismiss the registrar if he is “satisfied” of those things. That is far too weak.
	We must remember that the powers of the registrar as set up under this Bill are quite extensive. More to the point, my constituents have lobbied me—written to me; “lobbied” is almost a bad word—on many topics, and it was not fair for the Leader of the House or for the Deputy Leader of the House to suggest on Second Reading that we were all alarmed because of trade union scaremongering. That is not the case. I have not received a single letter or e-mail from a trade union, but I have received them from charities, which want reassurance that the registrar will be independent of Government. The registrar will have the power to keep and publish the register. They must keep the register up to date, they have the power to monitor compliance with obligations, and they can issue information notices if they believe that consultant lobbyists have not registered.
	There are significant penalties, including criminal conviction and civil penalties for non-compliance with the terms and conditions of part 1. It is essential for public confidence in the new register that, as the Leader of the House promised on Second Reading, the new system is independent of Government and the registrar enjoys independence. The amendments that I have tabled would require the Minister to allow the registrar to act independently. There must be an assurance in the Bill that the functions of the registrar will be exercised independently of any other person.
	The Leader of the House suggested on Second Reading that the register would be funded by the lobbying industry via a subscription charge. Again, I urge the coalition Government to heed the lack of confidence engendered in the general public because of lobbying scandals. It is incumbent on all of us to do all that we can to restore that confidence. For the Leader of the House to suggest that the lobbying industry would pay for the register
	through a subscription is not helpful. My amendments would ensure that the independence of the registrar and of the register is guaranteed, and I hope that the Government will look at them sympathetically.

Graham Allen: I strongly support the points that have just been made, and I am happy to add my name to the amendments.
	We should return to the point that I made briefly about pre-legislative scrutiny. It would have saved a great deal of grief if we had undertaken such scrutiny, and it is incumbent on all of us to consider how we do so in future, so that we avoid the mistakes and so that the Government—I do not mean just this Government but the one before and the one to come—listen to Parliament. As a result of that sentiment and the fact that Parliament has a contribution to make, the report that members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee hurriedly put together after having returned early from the recess to take evidence made it clear that the Standing Orders of the House should be amended to say:
	“No public Bill shall be presented unless a) a draft of the Bill has received pre-legislative scrutiny by a Committee of the House or a joint Committee of both Houses, or b) it has been certified by the Speaker as a Bill that requires immediate scrutiny and pre-legislative scrutiny would be inexpedient.”
	Let us try to avoid, for the sake of all future Governments, getting into this sort of shambolic mess—a mess whereby people push through a Bill, do not discuss it with Parliament or with any of the relevant organisations before releasing it into the public and parliamentary domain a day before the recess, where it is then debated on the Floor of the House a day after our return from recess.

Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the many benefits of pre-legislative scrutiny might have been more time to go through the finances of the registrar and to understand which set of estimates on who would register—the estimates of the industry or those of the Government—was most likely to be correct?

Graham Allen: There are so many possibilities where a contribution might have been made, and where no contribution could have been made, we would have been no worse off. We managed to accumulate a wealth of evidence. Let us not forget that in a period of about four working days, my Select Committee produced a report for the benefit of Members in all parts of the House. We worked very hard and received 81 organisations throughout the UK, which are listed at the back of the report—not just anybody, but people who had a real interest. It was surprising to see how much interest was generated among people who were a little afraid about what is in part 2, which we will consider tomorrow. I hope we will consider it tomorrow in a slightly more seemly way.
	Today’s debate is to conclude at 10 pm and we have got through only two groups of amendments. That is an abuse and it is disrespectful to the House. There are eight amendments that I tabled or with which I am associated that we will not reach, and there are many, many others tabled by Members in all parts of the Committee. These are not trivial matters. They are not
	fillers, as though we did not have much to think about over the past few days so we bunged in a few odd amendments.
	Those amendments relate to extremely serious issues, which will not now get an airing in this Committee—issues such as whether Ministers and permanent secretaries should be the only people who should count as being lobbied. It has been alluded to, but the group of amendments relating to that, which are the result of some solid work, may I say, by my Committee and by colleagues in all parts of the House, will not be taken seriously. They will not be listened to and colleagues will not be able to make those points, to have Ministers listen to them and to improve the Bill.
	The rights of Members of Parliament are also a very important area. Are Members of Parliament lobbyists? Are they lobbied? Should they be registered? How does this relate to our interaction with constituents? I know that these issues are of great concern to the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the House and the Government. That group of amendments, too, will not be reached tonight.

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very experienced and he knows perfectly well that he may not debate issues that may or may not be reached later. We are debating a group of amendments.

Graham Allen: Therefore it is important that the issues in this group are debated. That is what I want to get to, as you kindly indicated, Sir Roger, after that preamble.

Gareth Thomas: Is not one of the concerns about the short time that we have to debate even this group of amendments the fact that we will not be able to explore the case for a code of conduct, which so many organisations outside the House and so many of those on both sides of the House who have studied the Bill believe is essential if we are to give a registrar the teeth they need to make a difference?

Graham Allen: Sir Roger, my hon. Friend on the Front Bench deserves a severe reprimand for trying to mislead me again into talking about matters not covered by the present group of amendments. It is a matter of great regret that that issue is another one that, as he points out, will not be discussed. This is not to make a point for or against either Front-Bench team, but Members have a right to voice an opinion on key aspects of legislation. That will not now take place. I do not point a finger at anybody. I merely say that that is not an acceptable way to run a sweet shop, let alone a Parliament.
	To describe the heart of what we are considering in the present group, I shall quote extensively from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee report, which states:
	“There was a significant degree of agreement that the additional information should include disclosure of the subject matter of the lobbying, and some agreement around the idea of including the purpose of the lobbying and a list of who had been lobbied.”
	I talked earlier about an evidence base. However hurriedly it took place in the time frame we had to put our evidence base together, a wide variety of organisations, which are listed in the report, submitted evidence,
	quotations from which are included. Spinwatch said that the information required under the Bill was “wholly insufficient”, adding
	“For a register to meaningfully allow public scrutiny of lobbying, it must include information from lobbyists on their interactions with government. In other words: whom they are meeting and what issues they are discussing. Members of the public wanting to see which outside organisations are exerting influence on a particular policy area, for example, will be unable to do so under this proposal.”
	We also had a joint submission from three eminent academics, Dr Hogan, Professor Murphy and Dr Chari, who argued for the inclusion in the register of
	“the subject matter and purpose of the lobbying”.
	The Royal College of Midwives said:
	“It is hard to see how the information requested will add greatly to the transparency of the lobbying process…Would it be too burdensome, at the very least, to ask for the register also to spell out the issues on which clients are seeking to lobby (e.g. improved conditions for farm animals), and the nature of the lobbying that has taken place (e.g. an all-party group on road hauliers established)?”
	The oft-quoted tonight Iain Anderson, the deputy chair of APPC, supported publishing information about the purpose and subject matter of lobbying, but suggested that this could be done most effectively and efficiently when details of ministerial and official meetings were published rather than in the register. That is a perfectly acceptable matter for the Committee to explore, but time will not allow us to do so, although we could make a serious contribution to the development of the Bill.
	The Committee on Standards in Public Life also argued that information on the subject matter could be included, either on the register or in the details that were published of meetings. The difficulty with including the information in the data about ministerial and official meetings is that if the definition of lobbying is expanded to encompass contact with the rest of the civil service, special advisers and others who do not necessarily publish details of their meetings, such information would necessarily be quite patchy.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Allen: I will gladly give way.

Lady Hermon: That was said with great enthusiasm. I thank the hon. Gentleman for gladly giving way. That is very kind indeed.
	Can the hon. Gentleman throw light on one particular aspect that I am genuinely extremely concerned about? We are talking here about oral and written communications with Ministers and permanent secretaries, described by the Minister as the key decision makers. Did the hon. Gentleman’s Committee and the witnesses comment on or even criticise the fact that “permanent secretary” is defined to include the Director of Public of Prosecutions? What we are aiming to look at here is what goes on behind the scenes of Government. The DPP should not be included. He is independent of Government and his independence should be guaranteed.

Graham Allen: Witnesses did indeed express great concern about the narrowness of the provision whereby those who can be regarded as falling into the category of being lobbied include Ministers and permanent secretaries only. There was nothing precisely about the DPP that
	I can immediately bring to mind, but I will go back over the evidence and make sure that I drop a line to the hon. Lady should there be anything along those lines.

Lady Hermon: I am not testing the hon. Gentleman’s memory at all. I am sure that his recall is clear and that he does not need to go back over the evidence. But does he himself think that it is proper that the DPP should be included within the definition of a permanent secretary?

Graham Allen: I do not feel competent to give an accurate and helpful answer to the hon. Lady’s point. She and those with a different view should participate in pre-legislative scrutiny and put their arguments and reasons to the Government, who then make a choice—they will execute, they will decide. At the moment, there is execution and decision without participation and consultation; it is blindfolded government not using Parliament as the effective partner it should be.
	Alexandra Runswick, the director of Unlock Democracy, made points about the depth of the information required. Again, we go for black or white—either people want everything or do not want anything, but the truth is that we should have reasonable amounts of information that everyone feels is appropriate. Having discussed the issue with all parts of the lobbying industry and those interested in it, we got to a position of consensus. For example, Unlock Democracy said:
	“We are not expecting a transcript of the meeting, but what policy area it is that is being lobbied on. There are already individual MPs who publish their diaries and say, for example, ‘I met Unlock Democracy about the Lobbying Bill.’ That is the level of information that we are looking at—the policy that is being lobbied about, not the exact information that was shared with the person whom you are lobbying.”
	That led my Select Committee to table amendment 56, which we felt was appropriate, proportionate and helpful to the Government. Yet we are discussing it at the fag end of the sitting and many other issues will not even get an airing.
	We suggested that the information that the register requires to be listed should be expanded to include the subject matter and purpose of lobbying when that is not already clear from a company’s name. To be clear, that should not involve the disclosure of detailed information about the content of the meeting, just a broad outline of the subject matter and intended outcome. For example, “Subject matter—lobbying; purpose—change the Transparency of Lobbying Bill.”
	We also suggested in our report that there should be a financial threshold above which companies are required to provide information about the subject matter and purpose of lobbying. That is why we framed, as a Select Committee, an amendment that we felt was reasonable and helpful to the House and the Government.
	I will conclude my remarks, as others wish to contribute. At the end of the day, we are trying to improve the Bill. It is a sad fact that if the House of Commons is not treated properly and if the process is cavalier and one in which Parliament’s view is neglected or not even regarded with respect, we sell the pass. When the public want an effectively lobbying Bill, we say, “We’re not even capable of discussing most of the groups of amendments on the agenda tonight.” As a House of Commons, we pass our
	responsibility over to the other place. That is not satisfactory to anyone in the House of any political description who feels that their role is to hold the Government to account and scrutinise legislation. If we do not do the job, the second Chamber will fill the vacuum. Any self-respecting Member of Parliament will feel that that is not a place where we should be.

Chloe Smith: I want to respond to a couple of the amendments before we wind up. Amendments 3 and 4 would alter clause 1 and provide that lobbying was prohibited unless a lobbyist had both registered and signed up to the register’s code of conduct. Amendment 42 would establish a civil sanction in relation to breaches of the code of conduct. New clause 1 provides that the registrar must produce a code. However, there is little detail about what provision such a code would make other than that it would forbid inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and parliamentarians. The amendments reveal that, as we perhaps knew already, the Opposition intend not only a register of lobbyists but a full-blown regulator of the industry.

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Lady says that the amendment makes no provision for a description of what might be in the code of conduct. I gently say that that seems a bit presumptuous. The point is that there needs to be wide discussion with the industry and those who watch its activities about what should be in a code of conduct. Why will she not allow provision for a code of conduct and then ensure that there is proper discussion across the industry on what might be in it?

Chloe Smith: It is interesting that the Opposition have spent a good four hours telling us to do what the industry wants and are now advocating something that the industry does not want, which is a fully statutory code of conduct. I will make further arguments as to why there is a problem with putting all this on to the statute book.
	I have already dealt with what the Government are trying to do through the Bill, which is to shine the light of transparency on a specific element of the industry. In doing so, we recognise the industry’s efforts to improve lobbying practice by introducing its own codes of conduct, and we are confident that that would continue; we have no reason to believe that it would not. It is right that those codes then promote the ethical behaviour that we need for the integrity—

Gareth Thomas: rose—

Chloe Smith: It might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman allowed me to make a few points in response to his intervention.
	While such codes contain laudable principles and good practice guidance, their translation into statute is not feasible or practical. The experience of regulators in other jurisdictions clearly shows that statutory codes of conduct for lobbying can be unworkable and unenforceable. That is what I seek to guard against in opposing the amendment. The question then hangs in the air of what provisions the Opposition would expect to see in a code of conduct. They have provided very little indication other than that it will, rather intriguingly, forbid any
	inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and parliamentarians. Can the Opposition give us an example of what an inappropriate relationship might entail? Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether it would not already be prohibited by Parliament’s own code of conduct or laws on bribery and corruption? He is silent, which is rather worrying. This is another example of the rather lazy and imprecise draftsmanship that we have seen from the Opposition today, and that is not good enough. He does not provide any notion about how the code’s provisions might be enforced and what resources the registrar would be required use to monitor it. The Opposition are setting the registrar an impossible task in expecting them to do that kind of thing. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
	The Opposition’s amendment 31 would alter paragraph 3 of schedule 2 to provide that the registrar’s appointment must be approved by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I think I heard its Chairman say that this was a new job that he had not necessarily asked for.

Gareth Thomas: I intervened to give the hon. Lady an opportunity to correct the record. It is not true that the whole lobbying industry does not support a code of conduct, although it is certainly true that a number of people want a hybrid version. However, many within the industry do support a code of conduct. She is yet to explain why a code of conduct is not necessary.

Chloe Smith: I have just gone to the lengths of providing the hon. Gentleman with an argument, with international examples, as to why making something statutory from a voluntary position can often be unfeasible. That argument stands. In fact, my reference to the industry relates particularly to the APPC.
	The Opposition’s amendment 43 would amend the reference to the setting of the subscription charge from requiring the Minister to “seek to” recover the full costs to requiring them to recover the full cost. That seems unnecessary. I can assure the whole Committee that we are well aware of the importance of ensuring that the register is fully funded by the industry in order to protect the taxpayer. As I said earlier, the Canadian register costs £3 million to run. The Opposition have not fully considered how they would ensure that such costs would be recovered from, no doubt, the charities, playgroup volunteers and vicars whom they intend to register.
	Amendments 136 and 138, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), demonstrate his desire to secure the independence of the registrar. I share that desire and hope that I have reassured him. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) refer to this point as well. It is important that the registrar will be independent of both the lobbying industry and the Government and will have a clear remit to operate independently. Ministers will be able to dismiss the registrar only if they are satisfied that he or she is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform the functions of the office. I urge hon. Members not to press amendments 136 and 138.

Lady Hermon: I have listened carefully and intently to the Minister. Where in the Bill is the independence of the registrar guaranteed? What justification can the
	Minister have for not putting it in black and white on the face of the Bill? I ask her, please, not to give reassurances that will be reported in
	Hansard
	. It should be put in the Bill so that people outside have a guarantee of independence.

Chloe Smith: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s arguments in support of amendment 136. I regard the Bill and the explanations we have given as sufficient, but I am willing to continue to review the issue.
	Amendments 34, 36, 37 and 152 would require lobbyists to disclose financial information. Amendment 56 would also alter the information requirements in clause 4 to require the disclosure of the purpose and subject of any lobbing. We have been very clear that the objective of the register is the identification of the interests that are being represented by consultant lobbying firms. Lobbyists should therefore be required to disclose their clients. We are not persuaded that the burden that would be imposed, on both the industry and the regulator, of requiring further information is justified by the fairly limited insight it will provide. It is not a proportionate approach to the problem identified. I urge hon. Members not to press the amendments.
	The Opposition’s amendment 40 would alter clause 10 on self-incrimination and limit the information that persons are required to provide in response to an information notice. This unclear and oddly drafted amendment tops off the evening. Its unwelcome effect would be that, in response to an information notice, a person would not be required to provide any self-incriminating information including any offence committed in relation to the register. It would therefore entirely undermine the enforcement regime relating to the register. The registrar could still seek to investigate registration breaches using information notices, but the result would be that, where there had been such a breach, the lobbyist would be entitled to refuse to provide any information and only lobbyists that had not breached it would be required to provide information. I urge the hon. Member for Hemsworth not to press that crowning glory of an amendment.
	The purpose of new clauses 2 and 7 is unclear. They appear to require that, if a registered professional lobbyist is appointed to a role in Government or to work for a Government party, their appointment should be scrutinised by a committee and restrictions placed on their activities. I ask the Opposition: who should such a committee consist of and what would be their remit? What restrictions would be placed on the activity of such an appointee? The proposed new clauses clearly do not provide the answers. The Opposition are weak and muddled, and I urge them not to press the new clauses.

William Cash: Business is proceeding in such a fashion that we may not even get to the very important questions of parliamentary privilege addressed by amendment 164, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). The fact is that this is about this House of Commons. It is incredible that we should not be able to discuss the way in which this Bill interacts with the privilege question.

Chloe Smith: I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to look down the selection list. I am grateful to the
	Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who has worked with parliamentary counsel to produce amendment 151. The Government would like to support that amendment tonight because we believe that that important area of the Bill needs further clarification. Under the amendment, the existing MP exemption—

Roger Gale: Order. I think it only right to say that amendment 151 will not be moved because it will not be called unless the Government choose to move it.

Chloe Smith: I will beg to move the amendment at the appropriate time.

Graham Allen: That is a wonderful precedent. I have a large number of other amendments on the Order Paper. I am very happy to be the midwife and to hand those over to the hon. Lady.

Roger Gale: Order. Nice try.

Chloe Smith: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
	With that, I will finish speaking so that it is possible for another Back Bencher to speak.

John Thurso: Will the Minister give way?

Chloe Smith: Yes.

John Thurso: As the Minister is in such a generous mood, would she like to look at my amendment 45?

Chloe Smith: While we are discussing the topic of further amendments to support, I ought to add that the Opposition made no objection to the programme motion in July.
	In concluding, I will turn briefly to amendment 137, which would require that details be provided about any communications between consultant lobbyists and Ministers or permanent secretaries, even if they were not in return for payment, not on behalf of a third party and did not concern Government policy or functions. That would mean that if a consultant lobbyist bumped into a Minister on the tube and spoke about the weather, not Government issues, that meeting would need to be recorded. Indeed, if a consultant lobbyist happened to be married to a permanent secretary, it would be necessary for the details of their communications to be disclosed on a quarterly basis, even if they never took work home, as it were.
	I can see that hon. Members are attempting to ensure that inappropriate conversations about ministerial responsibilities do not take place in private, but this is another example of good intentions leading to unintended consequences through unclear drafting. The answer has to be a declaration by Ministers of any meetings that touch upon their ministerial responsibilities, the framework for which we have provided in government. That will form a central part of the transparency regime that we are introducing in part 1 of the Bill. I urge the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) not to press amendment 137.

Caroline Lucas: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will be aware that we are pressed for time and that the mover of the amendment must have the opportunity to respond. I am sure that she will bear that in mind.

Caroline Lucas: I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) about the way in which the debate has been organised and the high number of amendments that will not be scrutinised at all. Ironically, the Prime Minister brought forward the Bill saying that he wanted to avoid the next scandal. I am sure I am not alone in thinking that the way in which we are being forced to handle this debate is in itself a scandal.
	I will speak briefly to amendment 152, the purpose of which is to bring depth to the Bill by focusing on financial disclosure. I believe that there should be a requirement to disclose a good-faith estimate of how much money has been spent on lobbying activity. The Minister said that the purpose of the Bill was to shine the light of transparency on lobbying. To my mind, we would be doing only half the job if we did not ensure that we had an idea of what was being spent on lobbying. I will try again to persuade her that requiring information on how much money is spent on lobbying on a quarterly basis would be proportionate and not burdensome.
	The money being spent is the clearest indication of how committed an industry or organisation is to influencing a particular issue. It is also a clear indicator that Government decision making on an issue must be carefully scrutinised. Money also reveals the scale, disparities and trends in lobbying, and financial disclosure of the amount spent on lobbying would help us assess the spending gap between business and civil society groups, for example, or multinationals and non-profit organisations lobbying for Government contracts. Such a requirement need not be a bureaucratic burden. Work by Unlock Democracy on a mock filing showed that it would take about 20 minutes to prepare. That already happens in the US, and I have heard no good argument for it not to happen here. As a result, in the US it is much easier to see what is going on.
	Simply by looking at lobbying expenditures from the Senate Office of Public Records, we see that last year the US tobacco industry spent more than $26.5 million on lobbying. Those figures also reveal a long-term trend. Although exact levels have fluctuated, the industry has consistently spent more than $20 million a year for the past 10 years. By contrast, in the UK we know only that the Government have retreated from their support for plain packaging, amid rumours that multimillion pound lobbying contracts have been signed, from press reports or behind-the-scenes tip-offs. We have all heard the allegations that last November, after his appointment as the Prime Minister’s electoral strategy adviser, Lynton Crosby signed a contract between Philip Morris International and Crosby Textor for lobbying in the UK that could be worth many millions, but we have nothing the public can use properly to hold the Government to account. We should not have to pick our way through
	rumours, tip-offs, allegations and counterclaims to find the truth; it should be officially gathered and openly published for all to see.
	Equally, we know that the taxpayer-funded Royal Bank of Scotland spent more than £2.5 million on lobbying Washington about financial regulation laws, but we know it from documents released by the US Government that list lobbying activity in the US and state the lobbyist, client, amount spent and the subject of the lobbying. Therefore, even though we have a stake in that bank we have no right to know how much it has spent in the UK; we have that information only because of financial disclosure requirements in the US lobbying register, and we have no idea how much RBS or any UK bank spends on lobbying the UK Government.
	US rules also reveal lobbying trends or stories. For example, the oil and gas industry spent more than $140 million on lobbying in the US in 2012—well over double, and getting close to treble, the $52 million it spent in 2004. Therefore, an important story is revealed. We see climate change rising up the political agenda as science shows the risks to be even greater, and we see the economic benefits of cleaner renewable energy and the challenge that poses to incumbent utilities business models. We also see the oil and gas industry redouble its lobbying efforts and throw tens of millions of pounds into the process. Information about the industry’s spending tells us far more than just knowing that it has had certain meetings; it is a vital part of the equation.
	Amendment 56, tabled in the name of the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, is linked to the money and financial disclosure provision. I will conclude by saying that I strongly support that amendment, and if we want the lobbying register genuinely to increase transparency and for the Bill to have genuine depth and purpose, the subject matter and the money must be recorded and revealed.

Graham Allen: The way we have dealt with the Bill has meant that much of today’s debate has been esoteric and about us, Parliament, and a tight group of lobbyists. Tomorrow, we will be debating a matter of great concern to charities and voluntary sector organisations, hundreds of which have spoken to Members from both sides of the House. Will the hon. Lady join me in hoping that the discussion tomorrow, particularly on key clause 27, is conducted in an open and honest way so that a decision can be made that links this House back to the broader civic society—or big society—tomorrow? That will be an important debate.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that after the mess of today, tomorrow is an opportunity to demonstrate that the House is able to debate the matter seriously, honestly, and in a way we can be proud of, rather than feeling—as I certainly do tonight—rather ashamed of the way the debate has taken place this evening.
	Let me conclude simply by saying that the Government’s proposal of a mere list of consultant lobbyists and their clients does not go far enough. The point I have made in amendment 152 is that we need to know how much money is being spent. If the US can do it, surely the UK can. That would tell us a lot more about lobbying trends in this country.

Gareth Thomas: I indicated in my opening remarks that amendment 3 was a probing amendment. Even though the Minister has skipped over the concerns that led the Opposition to table it, I shall seek to withdraw it.
	The shadow Cabinet Office Minister tried hard to cover up the weakness of the Bill and the absence of a case for a code of conduct—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr Hoyle; I meant to refer to the Cabinet Office Minister rather than the shadow Minister. The Government have given no proper explanation why a code of conduct is absent from the Bill, or why a code of conduct would not improve it. Without a code of conduct, the registrar will have no teeth and no ability to tackle poor or unethical behaviour by lobbyists. For that reason, I shall press amendment 4 to a Division.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: 4, in clause1,page1,line8,after ‘lobbyists’, insert
	‘and
	(c) the person has signed up to the Register’s Code of Conduct.’.—(Mr Thomas.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 210, Noes 280.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 3 September).
	The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
	Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Meaning of consultant lobbying

Amendment made: 77, page 2, line 3, after ‘persons’ insert—
	‘(aa) the person is registered under the Value Added Tax Act 1994,’.—(Miss Chloe Smith)
	Amendment proposed: 9, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	‘(b) in return for payment the person advises others how to make communications within subsection (3).
	(c) in return for payment the person arranges or facilitates a formal or informal meeting within subsection (3).’.—(Jon Trickett.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 209, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendments made: 78, page2,line28,at end insert
	‘a person serving the government in’.
	Amendment 79, page2,line29,leave out ‘a person holding’.
	Amendment 80, page2,line31,leave out ‘a person holding’.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Carrying on the business of consultant lobbying

Amendments made: 91,page50,line18 after ‘not’ insert
	‘, by reason of making a communication,’.
	Amendment 92,page50,line19, leave out
	‘(or, where the person is an employee, the person’s employer)’.
	Amendment 93,page50,line20, leave out
	‘is mainly a non-lobbying business’ and insert ‘consists mainly of non-lobbying activities’.
	Amendment 94,page50,line22, leave out from first ‘of’ to end of line 24 and insert
	‘the communication is incidental to the carrying on of those activities’.
	Amendment 95,page50, leave out from beginning of line 25 to ‘activities’ in line 26 and insert
	‘In sub-paragraph (1) “non-lobbying activities” are’.
	Amendment 96,page51,line9, leave out
	‘(or, where the person is an employee, the person’s employer)’.
	Amendment 97,page51,line12, leave out ‘(or employer)’.
	Amendment 151,page51,line35, at end insert—
	‘(2) But “payment” does not include any sums payable to a member of either House of Parliament—
	(a) under section 4 or 5 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (MPs’ salaries and allowances),
	(b) pursuant to a resolution or a combination of resolutions of the House of Lords relating to expenses and allowances for its members, or
	(c) otherwise out of money provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund.
	(6A) ’.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2
	 — 
	The Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists

Amendment made: 98,page53,line15, at end insert ‘or was an employee of a person who carried on that business.’.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 4 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12
	 — 
	Offences

Amendment made: 81, page6,line22,leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	‘( ) If a person carries on the business of consultant lobbying in breach of section 1(1) (lobbying whilst unregistered), an offence is committed by—
	(a) the person, and
	(b) any employee of the person who engages in lobbying in the course of that business.’.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 13 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22
	 — 
	Charges

Amendment made: 82, page10,line28,leave out subsection (3).—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23
	 — 
	Power to make further provision

Amendment made: 83, page11,line13,at end insert—
	‘( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision permitting or requiring the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to supply to the Registrar, on request, such information regarding any person who is, or is required to be, registered under the Value Added Tax Act 1994 as is specified in the regulations.’.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendments made: 84, in page11,line31,leave out from ‘lobbying’ to end of line 32.
	Amendment 85, in,page12,line1,at end insert ‘of consultant lobbyists’.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 3 September).
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business Without Debate

Delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Bodies

That the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of BRB (Residuary) Limited) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

SPOUSAL VISAS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Andrew Percy: I am delighted to have secured this debate on spousal visas, an issue on which the Minister has responded on a number of occasions. On one of the last such occasions, on 19 June in Westminster Hall, he explained that the spousal visa changes had three aims: dealing with fraud, namely, sham marriages; promoting better integration, including English language testing and tests on life in the UK; and preventing visa applicants from becoming a burden to the taxpayer. I do not necessarily have an objection to any of those aims. Indeed, I would like to see a tougher immigration system, but he also said in that debate that the changes are
	“about preventing abuse and setting out sensible rules that people can follow.”—[Official Report, 19 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 275WH.]
	The question I wish to raise on behalf of one of my constituents is whether we are in fact following sensible rules, and whether the changes are affecting the people they are designed to impact upon.
	This Government inherited the mess in the immigration system left by the previous Government. I, like all Conservative Members, was elected on the basis of having a tough immigration system and that is what I wish to see. In my constituency, however, the failure of the last Government was broadly around European Union immigration, which these rules do nothing to impact upon.
	I pay tribute to the Minister, who has had to respond to issues around spousal visas on a number of occasions. He is a very competent Minister and I am sure he will be able to take on board my concerns, which I raise on behalf of one of my constituents, Gary Smith, who lives in Goole.
	Gary is 43 and has been married for five years to his Cambodian wife Shantar. They have a three-year-old daughter, Aaliyhh, a British national of course, who currently resides with her mother in Cambodia; they have lived there for five years. Gary and Shantar have been married since 2008. Gary’s wife is a restaurant manager, a qualified teacher and a business partner in a local charity in Cambodia for which Gary used to work. His wife has been able to visit the UK but, unfortunately, because of these visa changes, she is unable to settle here.
	Shantar’s visa application has been rejected on a number of grounds. Two of them were technical issues to do with some lost paperwork. The embassy in Cambodia apparently lost her English language certificate, which I have managed to get a copy of, and it is hoped that that problem will be solved. Another issue regards accommodation in the UK, which has been, or is being, resolved.
	Unfortunately, Gary, a street sweeper with the East Riding of Yorkshire council, because of his income level, is unable to hit the £18,600 minimum income requirement to bring his wife of five years and the mother of their child to this country. With overtime, Gary earns £17,000 and, being a local government employee, he has had no significant rise for the last
	three years. He is currently supporting his family in Cambodia, sending out what will shortly amount to £200 a month just for school fees to educate his child, along with other support. That is as opposed to supporting his wife and child in this country. He lives in Goole, and the property in which he lives costs £450 a month. Council tax is less than £100 a month, and in our town there is no question but that on an income of up to £17,000 he could support his wife and child.
	Moreover, Gary’s wife has been offered a job in the United Kingdom, and I have a letter from the employer—a very good employer—who says that the skills that she has as a restaurant manager would be greatly needed in the new project that the business is hoping to start in Goole. However, under the rules, the letter offering her a job means nothing and has no impact on the income threshold. Despite the fact that there are huge concerns in Goole about immigration, bearing in mind the fact that up to 25% of its population are EU migrants—that issue is raised regularly—800 Goolies have signed a petition in support of my constituents, and there is real support for Gary on the issue.

Neil Parish: I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the debate. I have a constituent called Mrs Celia Elizabeth Parr who is married to a doctor from Ecuador, and they have a little child. Mrs Parr lives in Colyton, and she has enough self-employed income, but she has experienced huge problems getting her husband into the country. We very much support tighter immigration controls, but we seem to be stopping people who have a legitimate right to be here from putting their family back together again.

Andrew Percy: I thank my hon. Friend, and I shall come on to the impact that that has had on decent people who just want to bring their family together and make a life here.
	In relation to the income rule that has impacted on my constituent, I shall give the House the average incomes in our area, which has a low-wage economy. The average income in the East Riding of Yorkshire is £5 above the threshold. I represent the poorest part of the East Riding, and Gary lives in one of the bottom 25% most deprived areas in the country, so achieving £18,000 is something of which many people in our area can only dream. The average income in inner London is £34,749.
	We may have low incomes, but we also have low house prices. The average house price in our area is £150,000, compared with the average in Greater London of £454,000, which is even more than my house cost. Gary could have the same job earning slightly more than that arbitrary £18,600, and he would be able to bring his wife in, despite the fact that he would have greater outgoings and a much lower disposable income than he has by virtue of the fact that he lives in Goole. I am grateful for a figure provided by the Royal College of Nursing to the all-party parliamentary group on migration, which has done a good job on this issue. The RCN points out that the majority of national health service care support workers earn a maximum of £17,253 a year. Anyone who is an NHS care support worker is not allowed to find love outside the country.
	Since this issue came to light and I secured the debate, I have learned of several examples of the problem around the country, two of them involving US citizens who have been caught by the requirement. That is what concerns me most. The measure was supposed to impact on sham marriages, but who is it really affecting?

Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this Adjournment debate. He mentioned American citizens, and that is exactly the situation in which one of my constituents finds himself, having been caught by the rules. He lives in the much higher-than-average wage area, as my hon. Friend mentioned, of central London, but his background is in academia. He is going into a well-paid job in industry, but he has spent the past three years in academia with much lower wages, so he has been caught by the rules.

Andrew Percy: Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for that. As her constituency is in central London, the rules probably hit even harder than they do in mine. I know she will be working hard on behalf of her constituent. The point that she makes about the US is relevant. The figures from the Home Office show that the largest decline in family visas has been among applicants from the United States. In the year to March 2013 such visas were down by just under 1,000. In evidence to the all-party parliamentary group, the Migration Observatory points out that 47% of the UK working population last year would not meet the income criterion. In my constituency that figure would be an awful lot higher.
	Denying some of those people access to join their family is having a detrimental effect on the UK economy. When they come here their passports are stamped with the words “No recourse to public funds”, but they are often people who, if they were here working, as in the case of my constituent, whose wife has a job offer, would be paying tax and contributing to the UK economy. I make no bones about wanting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) said, a tougher immigration system. The English language testing is problematic for some, but I understand the importance of that in ensuring that people can come here and contribute. My constituent’s wife has a job offer, has a qualification in English, has studied with an Australian college and would be of benefit to our local community. It concerns me that we are affecting in particular immigration from countries that have a lot more in common with us than much of the EU immigration with which it is contrasted.

Fiona Mactaggart: One of the things that has distressed me about the many cases that I face in Slough is having to say to one or two of my constituents who are dual nationals from another EU country that it would be in their interests not to use their British citizenship, but to go and work in the country of another EU citizenship—say, Irish—and then bring their spouse here. As an EU citizen this rule would not divide their family. Any EU citizen who is using the free movement of workers privileges can be joined by their spouse.

Andrew Percy: I thank the hon. Lady for making it unnecessary for me to read out a paragraph of my speech. I am grateful for that as time is pressing. She made a point that I intended to make myself.
	As I said before the intervention, it concerns me that the policy is having an impact on immigration from countries such as the US, Canada, Australia and many other Commonwealth countries, from which immigration to the UK would probably cause the least impact. The people most likely to be able to integrate well here, who bring English language skills and similar levels of education, are excluded. It is timely that a Minister from the Canadian Cabinet is watching the debate. Her country’s citizens would be greatly affected by the rules.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We may not refer to people outside the Chamber.

Andrew Percy: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the same way as I should have apologised earlier for wafting my petition. This is not the appropriate time to present a petition so I offer my apologies to you for that.
	There is huge concern in the country about immigration. I understand the Government’s response to the issue, as I said previously, but constituents in my town, Goole, cannot understand why they see EU immigration being dealt with differently from non-EU immigration. We understand the legal position. I understand that the Minister cannot do anything about that under the current terms of our membership. Fortunately, we are on our way out of the EU, but it is hard to explain to my constituents why a British citizen with a British child in Cambodia, who works hard and is paying tax in this country, is unable to bring his family into this country, whereas we see increasing numbers of citizens coming from any EU country, without any English language requirement. It may not be a comfortable thing for people to hear but that is what people in my constituency have been saying about the rules.

Kerry McCarthy: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I have a constituent who wants to be in Bristol to look after his sick parents. He has a Thai wife. They have moved to Spain so that they can take advantage of the laws there and eventually come to the UK. That is ludicrous. He has had to go and live in Spain with his wife and child although they have no connection with that country at all, as that is the only way round the rules. On the one hand we have EU-wide laws that apply to all EU citizens; on the other hand people in the UK are treated differently from people in Spain.

Andrew Percy: Absolutely. I thank the hon. Lady, who has campaigned on this issue and had a debate on it. She makes well the point that we have one rule for some people and a different rule for others. That option would not be available for my constituent, but perhaps those with a higher standard of education or more access to funds can get round the rules through another EU country, and that is a big concern to her constituents as it is to some of mine.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity and for the powerful speech that he is making. As he will know, another issue of huge concern is Syria. As he said, people cannot help whom they fall in love with. Does he
	agree that the case of Christine Gilmore, a constituent of mine who is trying to bring her husband, Ziad, over here, really shows that we have an extra need to prioritise those who are at threat in a war situation? Should not that be looked into as well?

Andrew Percy: My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for his constituents. The Minister will have heard that and I concur with what my hon. Friend said. I am conscious that I have only a couple of minutes before the Minister is due to reply, but my honourable neighbour is seeking to intervene, so I will give way to him.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He, of course, describes a very common situation in the area that we share in northern Lincolnshire, where, sadly, these cases are too numerous to mention. Is it not the fact that at the heart of this is family life being unfortunately disturbed and great distress caused because of rules that are probably well intentioned but have unforeseen consequences?

Andrew Percy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not disagree with the intention behind the rules. Wanting to cut down on sham marriages—absolutely. Wanting to put rules in place so that people come here and integrate better—absolutely. Wanting to make sure that people are not a burden on public funds—yes. But for my constituent, who lives in a lower wage area with a higher disposable income than somebody in the south of England, who is not able to bring his family in, and whose wife has a job offer that is not taken into account, the rules, well intentioned though they may be, fall down.
	I am keen to hear the Minister’s response, so I end with a couple of points that I would like to see out of this. I have rebelled against my own party on the idea of regional pay, of which I am a passionate opponent, so I will just throw out for the Minister the idea of a regional variation and ask him to consider it without it necessarily being my idea. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) from a sedentary position may be offering it up as his own idea. We need to have some consideration of people’s disposable income and outgoings, for all the reasons that I have highlighted.
	In a previous debate, the Minister, who is good and competent and cares about this area of policy, mentioned that there is a possibility of considering whether job offers for applicants could be taken into account. Of course we need to ensure that fake job offers and so on are properly accounted for, but I would appreciate an update on that. On behalf of my constituent, Gary Smith, I just make the plea to the Minister to look at this income-related element again. As I have said, this is a constituent with a wife to whom he has been married for five years, with a child whom they share. They are unable to come together at the moment. He does not want his wife to come here and claim benefits; he wants her to come here to work and to contribute to our local economy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for the opportunity to discuss this issue. He said very clearly at the beginning of his
	remarks that he very much supports the Government’s general position on the immigration system and the desire to restore some sanity to it after the uncontrolled immigration system that we saw under the Labour party, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
	As my hon. Friend correctly said in his opening remarks, the family rules have three aims. The first, which I know he strongly supports, is to deal with abuse, which is why we have extended from two years to five years the probationary period before partners can apply for settlement, to test the genuineness of the relationship concerned, which should help to deter applications based on sham marriages. Secondly, we are promoting the integration of family migrants by requiring those applying for settlement from 28 October this year to pass the new “Life in the UK” test and demonstrate that they can speak and understand English to the intermediate B1 level. That means that those intending to live permanently in the UK can communicate in the wider community and have a basic understanding of British history, culture and democracy. My hon. Friend said that he supported that as well.
	The third issue, about which my hon. Friend has concerns, is the aspect of the rules seeking to prevent burdens on the taxpayer by introducing the minimum income threshold of £18,600 a year to be met by those wishing to sponsor the settlement of a partner. He said that that was an arbitrary number. It was the Migration Advisory Committee, the independent body that advises the Government, that proposed a range of numbers based on its analysis of the problem; we adopted a figure from the lower end.
	In talking about regional pay, my hon. Friend touched on the interaction between the welfare and immigration systems. As I said in the Westminster Hall debate, it is interesting that Members who, in the context of this debate, say that £18,600 is a high number, often suggest—I am not suggesting my hon. Friend does—suggest in the context of a welfare debate that it is not high. We selected that number because it is broadly the amount more than which a couple must earn if they are not to be eligible for income-related benefits.
	My hon. Friend is right that in the period when the migrant spouse is in the UK before they get indefinite leave to remain, they are not entitled to benefits, but they will be once they are settled and their spouse may be entitled to income-related benefits because of their being here—housing benefit, for example. As he said, we do not have a regional benefit system and that is one of the complexities of the case.
	In practice, the previous requirement for adequate maintenance meant that any sponsor earning, after tax and housing costs, more than the equivalent of income support for a couple—about £5,700—was deemed to have sufficient funds to sponsor a partner. That was not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and did not provide adequate assurance—

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Mark Harper: If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will try to address my hon. Friend, whose Adjournment debate this is. I want to deal with his issues.
	The requirement provided little assurance of a sustainable basis over the long term. That is why we came up with the new financial requirement, based principally on the
	expert advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. It is the level of income at which a couple, once settled in the UK and taking into account children, generally cannot access income-related benefits. My hon. Friend said that his constituent had no intention of claiming benefits, but of course there is no way for us legally to enforce their not claiming benefits once they are in the United Kingdom.
	We think that we have set out the right basis. The Migration Advisory Committee looked at whether there was a case for varying the income threshold across the United Kingdom, which is the substance of my hon. Friend’s point—I know that he did not want to make that point, but I will take it as a suggestion floating around that I can comment on. The Migration Advisory Committee looked at that approach but concluded that there was not a clear case for taking it. It would mean that sponsors, for example, could make an application when living in one area and then move around the United Kingdom. It would also penalise a sponsor living in a relatively wealthy part of a poor region; they would have a lower income threshold than a sponsor living in a deprived area of a relatively wealthy region. A single national threshold may not be more acceptable, but it makes things clearer for people than a much more complicated system of regional targets.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, I said in the previous debate that we would continue to monitor the impact of the new rules and make adjustments when appropriate. People who have raised issues with me—I see Members here who came to see me—will have noticed that in the immigration rule changes that I laid before the House on Friday last week, we set out changes in the flexibility of evidence, allowing details of electronic bank statements to be submitted. There will also be flexibility around the cash savings that people can have, to include net proceeds from the sale of a property owned by the applicant and a partner. That has been an issue in some specific cases.
	We are also making provision for British sponsors returning from overseas to count future on-target earnings in some circumstances and to allow sub-contractors under the HMRC construction industry scheme to evidence their income from that work as if it were from salaried employment. We have made changes.
	On the change that my hon. Friend mentioned about taking account of the job offer of the migrant spouse, I have asked officials to look at that. The real challenge is how we could come up with a set of rules that were not liable to massive abuse. He highlighted that risk when he said that we would obviously have to deal with people being able to have fictitious job applications and people abusing those rules. I have asked for work to be done on that, and I will consider it. I know from the work that was done when the rules were introduced that it is not an easy issue to deal with, but we are looking at it.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Mark Harper: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. This is a Back-Bench debate and he gets plenty of opportunities to speak.
	I am conscious that in the specific case my hon. Friend raised, the gentleman concerned is not able to hit the income level. As I said, the real concern is about the interaction of the welfare system and the immigration
	system. That is why we have set the income level as it is. I suspect that a lot of Members who want us to reduce the income level would probably not support what would have to go with it—a reduction in the level at which someone could claim income-related benefits. Indeed, when I raised that in the Westminster Hall debate, many of those who were arguing for a lower level of income were rather silent in their support for a reduction in the welfare system. That is one of the interesting interactions that we have to deal with.
	My hon. Friend said that people in his constituency have highlighted the difference between those coming from the EU and those coming from outside it. Several other Members who are present have raised that issue. I would say several things. First, it may not be the case in his constituency, but nationally EU migration remains the smaller part of immigration. About 30% of immigrants come from EU countries and over half come still from outside the EU. It is important to put that into context. It is also the case that if people coming here from the EU want to stay for more than three months they cannot just come here for no reason—they have to be working or looking for work, or to be self-employed, self-sufficient or a student. There are some rules around the treaty rights that have to be exercised.
	The Government are concerned about the abuse of free movement whereby people may come to the United Kingdom simply to try to claim benefits or to get round the rules. My hon. Friend might be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, together with her colleagues and her equivalents from Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, has written to the European Commission and demanded action on this. We are in the process of putting together evidence that will be discussed at a relevant Council meeting—I think in October or November—when we will look at how we can deal with the abuse of free movement, which I know from my hon. Friend’s remarks is a concern for a number of his constituents.
	My hon. Friend suggested that this might be an area where a future Conservative Government may wish to look at detailed changes to our relationship with the rest of the European Union in order to deal with some of our constituents’ concerns. I know that he may well want to go a little further than the party’s policy, but whether it is leaving, as he would prefer, or having a robust negotiation, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intends, either of those situations would improve the position that his constituents and many of mine are concerned about. We cannot apply the same rules to EU citizens because we are bound by our treaty obligations. It is important that we make sure that we enforce the
	rules that already exist. I completely understand that his constituents may find that a challenge.
	Since I have three minutes left and I think I have dealt with my hon. Friend’s points, I will take a couple of interventions—one from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and then one from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).

Jane Ellison: I am grateful to the Minister. I thank him for the flexibility that he has shown and his preparedness to look at the rules and make adjustments. He is aware of a very long-running case that he has been dealing with and about which we have spoken very often. Self-employment can be an issue, particularly for someone who has had periods of maternity leave. Obviously, that challenge particularly affects women. Will he remain open to looking to make adjustments on such issues?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend mentions a case that she has raised extensively with me, including in writing, and I have set out a solution for her constituent. On self-employment, a couple of the changes we have made with regard to evidencing income will be helpful. We will continue to look at the detailed issues that are raised with us and we will, of course, deal with those that make sense and that we do not think are amenable to abuse. The rules have only been in place for a little over a year and we will continue to change them to make them more sensible where we think there are unintended consequences.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister and am grateful for the changes he has made already; I think they are moving in the right direction. He has said that couples require a minimum income of £18,600 before they get benefits, but the problem with that is that the burden is placed on the British resident and citizen, not the couple. Will the Minister do more take into account the capacity of the migrant spouse to earn while they are here?

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady raises a perfectly good point, which was also raised in the Westminster Hall debate. The difficulty is dealing with the matter in a way that is not easy to abuse and to use as a way of driving a coach and horses through the system. We continue to look at the matter, but I know from the abuse we have seen in other areas of the immigration system that if we simply require, for example, a job offer without any detailed back-up, I am afraid there are plenty of people around who have—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).